U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

64–707 PDF 2011

S. HRG. 111–872 

ADVANCING AMERICAN INNOVATION 

AND COMPETITIVENESS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 

SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MARCH 10, 2010 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

( 

(II) 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia, Chairman 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

MARK WARNER, Virginia 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas, Ranking 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

GEORGE S. LEMIEUX, Florida 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska 

ELLEN L. DONESKI, Staff Director 

JAMES REID, Deputy Staff Director 

BRUCE H. ANDREWS, General Counsel 

ANN BEGEMAN, Acting Republican Staff Director 

BRIAN M. HENDRICKS, Republican General Counsel 

NICK ROSSI, Republican Chief Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on March 10, 2010 ............................................................................ 1 

Statement of Senator Rockefeller ........................................................................... 1 

Statement of Senator Hutchison ............................................................................ 3 

Statement of Senator Nelson .................................................................................. 4 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 4 

Statement of Senator Klobuchar ............................................................................ 34 

Statement of Senator Begich .................................................................................. 38 

Statement of Senator Warner ................................................................................. 43 

Statement of Senator Thune ................................................................................... 51 

WITNESSES

Holdren, Hon. John P., Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy, 

Executive Office of the President of the United States .................................... 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 8 

Bement, Jr., Hon. Arden L., Director, National Science Foundation .................. 12 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 14 

Gallagher, Ph.D., Hon. Patrick D., Director, National Institute of Standards 

and Technology, United States Department of Commerce ............................... 22 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 23 

Braun, Dr. Robert D., Chief Technologist, NASA ................................................. 27 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 29 

APPENDIX

Response to written questions submitted to Hon. John P. Holdren, Ph.D. by: 

Hon. Bill Nelson ............................................................................................... 57 

Hon. Mark Warner ........................................................................................... 57 

Response to written questions submitted to Dr. Arden Bement, Jr. by: 

Hon. Bill Nelson ............................................................................................... 59 

Hon. Mark Warner ........................................................................................... 61 

Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison ............................................................................. 63 

Response to written questions submitted to Patrick D. Gallagher, Ph.D. by: 

Hon. Bill Nelson ............................................................................................... 63 

Hon. Tom Udall ................................................................................................ 65 

Hon. Mark Warner ........................................................................................... 66 

Hon. Olympia J. Snowe .................................................................................... 67 

Response to written questions submitted to Dr. Robert D. Braun by: 

Hon. Bill Nelson ............................................................................................... 69 

Hon. Tom Udall ................................................................................................ 73 

Hon. Mark Warner ........................................................................................... 73 

Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison ............................................................................. 75 

(1) 

ADVANCING AMERICAN INNOVATION 

AND COMPETITIVENESS 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 10, 2010 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:58 p.m. in room 

SR–253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Bill Nelson, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA 

Senator NELSON. The meeting will come to order. 

Senator Rockefeller. Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to apologize to you, to my 

colleagues, and to our witnesses, but Leader Reid did me a great 

favor; we were meant to start FAA reauthorization at 2 o’clock, 

right after the votes, but he knew that I wanted to come and make 

a statement, at least here, because what this is so—it’s all so important. And so, I’m doing that. 

But, in the meantime, a coup is taking place, and Senator Nelson 

has now—with the support of these two, has—I’m out. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Anyway, we’re here today to talk about science 

for research, research for innovation, innovation behind new technologies, and technology development that leads to high-tech jobs. 

Slow down, Jay. Science-based initiative drives economic growth 

and helps America compete in the global economy. For centuries, 

innovation has made this country’s global economics at the forefront, from the steam engine driving the Industrial Revolution to 

computers and networks powering the Internet Revolution. But, we 

cannot take that leadership for granted, because we see things slipping away from us. 

At a time when the economy continues to struggle, our future depends on the investments that we make today to keep our Nation 

competitive and ensure that our communities’ long-term economic 

security and prosperity will be fine. 

Five years ago, the National Academies reported ‘‘Rising Above 

the Gathering Storm’’ sounded the alarm that U.S. leadership in 

science and technology was eroding. It was shocking and it was 

true—and is. 

And so, Congress responded in 2007 with the America COMPETES Act, landmark legislation to increase national investment 

2 

in research and development; and in science, technology, engineering, and math education, popularly known as STEM. 

Dr. Holdren, I want to tell you, one of the best experiences I’ve 

had in years, I had last week in West Virginia. And I drove an 

hour and a half to Parkersburg, in Wood County, and I sat down 

for 3 hours—no press, nobody knew I was there—with six teachers 

teaching science, technology, engineering, or math—some cases, 

two. And this—the whole discussion—why they got into it, why 

they stay into it, what do they—how do they find the ‘‘button’’ in 

the student that has it, but doesn’t know it, or is inattentive because of problems at home, or whatever. But, just talking with 

these teachers—one, it gave you the sense of the power of the profession—the power of the profession to change lives—why it is so 

important, and then, particularly in these areas. It was—I floated 

back to Charleston, West Virginia, I was so happy and so proud of 

those folks. 

So, I ended on STEM education. Now the legislation is set to expire this year, and, as we know—and as we look toward reauthorization, we need to evaluate our progress since the law was passed. 

President Obama began his presidency with a call to, quote, ‘‘restore science to its rightful place.’’ He has followed through on that 

promise, with proposed funding increases in science, technology, 

and innovation, and STEM education. 

And we also made a significant investment with last year’s Recovery Act. Research institutions across the country have received 

the kind of grants and awards that will allow them to jumpstart 

new projects and hire new employees. 

I know West Virginia colleges and universities have already re- ceived nearly $29 million to continue their important work in West 

Virginia. That’s major money. But, we have a lot more to do, and 

we need to look even further down the road at the same time. 

And in this very difficult budgetary climate, I agree with the 

President’s focus on research investments in STEM education. I do 

also notice that it’s sort of a soft flat line, which always gives me 

hope. 

We may not see the immediate payoff from these budget increases, but the long-term dividends will be immeasurable. A 

world-class STEM workforce is fundamental to addressing the challenges of the 21st century, from developing clean sources of energy 

that reduce our dependence on foreign oil, to discovering cures for 

endless numbers of diseases. 

And, very importantly, it also means a lot of jobs. Projections 

from the Bureau of Labor and Statistics indicate that over 80 percent of the fastest-growing occupations depend on knowledge of 

mathematics and science. We simply cannot afford to continue jeopardizing our Nation’s future by failing to invest today. 

So, in closing, this hearing is an opportunity to examine how and 

where we are making those investments, as we consider the path 

ahead, and what more needs to be done. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator NELSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, that you would 

come here from handling the FAA bill on the floor. We are most 

appreciative. 

Thank you for opening this hearing. 

3 

Senator Hutchison. 

STATEMENT OF HON. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM TEXAS 

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I agree with everything that Senator Rockefeller said. I was one 

of the co-sponsors of the America COMPETES Act and so believe 

that it was the right thing to do. The ‘‘Rise Above the Gathering 

Storm’’ report gave us the blueprint to go forward. Today you’re 

going to be talking about where we are, how it is working, and 

what we need to do, going forward. 

I will have to leave, along with Senator Rockefeller, because the 

FAA reauthorization bill is on the floor. But, I want to say a couple 

of things. 

I do believe that science and technology are at the core of our 

ability to compete in an increasingly globalized economy and to 

solve the challenges that we face in energy independence, biotechnology, and healthcare. 

According to the National Science Board’s Science and Engineering Indicators 2010 report, U.S. leadership in research and development and technological innovation is not growing; it is shrinking. 

We are still world leaders in R&D, but if this trend continues, a 

future where we no longer are world leaders in technology development is imminent. 

In order to compete, the U.S. needs to not only train the best scientists and engineers in the world, but we must ensure that every 

student is prepared with a strong proficiency in math and science 

so we can be competitive for the high-tech jobs of the future. 

In my home state of Texas, only 41 percent of the high school 

graduates are ready for college-level math. Only twenty-four percent are ready for college-level biology. Furthermore, only 2 percent 

of ninth-grade boys and one percent of ninth-grade girls will go on 

to attain an undergraduate science or engineering degree. 

In contrast to these troubling numbers, 42 percent of all college 

undergraduates in China earn science or engineering degrees. Furthermore, in 2000, nearly 80 percent of the 114,000 science and engineering doctorates awarded worldwide were from institutions outside the United States, and this situation has only gotten worse in 

the last 10 years. 

I think we can make America even more competitive and innovative than it is today. And we must. To create high-paying, highlyskilled American jobs, we need to increase investment in research 

by lowering the corporate tax rate, including a permanent extension of the R&D tax credit and we need to encourage student interest in careers in math, science, and technology. Key aspects of the 

America COMPETES Act are focused on improving academic opportunities available to young Americans, including significant efforts to attract and train teachers qualified to teach courses in 

science and math, and expanding the availability of advanced 

placement courses. These are efforts we should continue to build 

upon as we move forward with efforts to reauthorize the America 

COMPETES Act. 

Thank you for this very timely hearing. I look forward to hearing 

the testimony of the distinguished panel that we have today. 

4 

Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA 

Senator NELSON. And I will just insert in the record an opening 

statement, and would urge my colleagues to do likewise, so that we 

can go on and get the testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Nelson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON, U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA

I’d like to thank each of our distinguished witnesses for being here today. Science, 

STEM education, research and development are some of the most important endeavors we undertake as a nation. 

Senator Rockefeller would like to be here today but has some business on the floor 

which is competing for his time. As the floor schedule allows, he will try to come 

and participate in this hearing. 

In 2007, Congress passed the America COMPETES Act—short for ‘‘Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and 

Science.’’ This was landmark legislation aimed to increase the Nation’s investment 

in research and development (R&D), and in science, technology, engineering, and 

mathematics (STEM) education. 

The Act was also a response to growing concerns that the Nation’s ability to compete in the global economy would be hindered by an inadequate science and engineering workforce to drive technological innovation and economic growth. 

As an example, my home state of Florida has the fourth largest high-tech workforce in the country. But only one third of Florida’s high school graduates are ready 

for college-level math, and only one fifth are ready for college science. We need to 

maintain a strong commitment to Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math education so that we can continue to produce the strong science and engineering workforce that has been so valuable to our economy. 

This concern is further highlighted as international competitors adopt the American innovation-driven economic model for the benefit of their own growth. 

Authorizations for the America COMPETES Act expire this year and, as we consider a reauthorization and the President’s FY 2011 budget proposal, we need to 

evaluate the effectiveness of the programs funded by COMPETES in increasing 

American innovation and competitiveness. 

Also, the President’s FY 2011 budget request for NASA creates a new Space Technology program to encourage a broad range of participants to develop next-generation technologies. This renewed focus on innovation is consistent with recommendations from the Augustine Committee and two National Research Council reports 

from 2009. 

In this spirit, and to coordinate technology investments across the agency, NASA 

also created the Office of the Chief Technologist. The Chief Technologist will need 

to establish a comprehensive research plan to ensure that the portfolio of earlystage research projects is aligned with long-term mission goals. But I am concerned 

that the President’s current budget request makes those long-term goals for the 

agency unclear. I’d like to spend some time exploring that topic today as well. 

I look forward to the testimony from each of our witnesses as we explore these 

important topics. 

Witnesses 

The Honorable John P. Holdren, Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy, 

will discuss the overall Federal investment in research and development. Dr. Holdren 

is Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, Director of the White 

House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and Co-Chair of the President’s 

Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). Dr. Holdren holds advanced degrees in aerospace engineering and theoretical plasma physics from MIT 

and Stanford and is highly regarded for his work on energy technology and policy, 

global climate change, and nuclear arms control and nonproliferation. 

The Honorable Arden L. Bement, Jr., Director, National Science Foundation 

(NSF), will discuss NSF’s leading role in supporting civilian research and development, and training scientists and engineers. Dr. Bement was sworn in as the 12th 

Director of the National Science Foundation (NSF) on November 24, 2004. As NSF 

Director, he heads the only Federal agency that funds research and education in all 

5 

fields of science and engineering. Dr. Bement earned a doctorate in metallurgical 

engineering from the University of Michigan. 

The Honorable Patrick D. Gallagher, Director, National Institute of Standards and 

Technology (NIST), will discuss NIST’s cutting edge research to advance new technologies. The agency promotes U.S. innovation and industrial competitiveness by advancing measurement science, standards, and technology. As Director, Gallagher 

provides high-level oversight and direction for NIST. Dr. Gallagher received his 

Ph.D. in Physics at the University of Pittsburgh in 1991. 

Dr. Robert D. Braun, Chief Technologist, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, will discuss NASA’s new Space Technology program. Dr. Braun was 

named NASA Chief Technologist by NASA Administrator Charles F. Bolden on Feb. 

3, 2010. He serves as the principal advisor and advocate on matters concerning 

agency-wide technology policy and programs. Dr. Braun received a Ph.D. in Aeronautics and Astronautics from Stanford University in 1996. 

Senator NELSON. And what I would like each of you to do—your 

written statement will be made a part of the record—rather than 

you sit there and read something to us, I’d rather you just take 

about 5 minutes and talk to us, and then we will get immediately 

into the questions. And I will defer to my colleagues for your questions first, before me. 

So, let me just tell you what a distinguished panel that Chairman Rockefeller has assembled: The Honorable John Holdren—he’s 

the Director of the Office of Science and Technology, and he’s going 

to discuss the overall Federal investment in research and development, and his credentials are stellar; The Honorable Arden 

Bement—‘‘Beemit’’—Bement, Director of the National Science 

Foundation, and he’s going to discuss the Foundation’s leading role 

in supporting civilian research and development and training scientists and engineers; and The Honorable Patrick Gallagher, the 

Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, 

NIST, will discuss NIST’s cutting-edge research to advance new 

technologies; and Dr. Robert Braun, Chief Technologist at NASA, 

and he’ll discuss NASA’s new Space Technology Program. 

So, gentlemen, we’ll go in that order. 

Dr. Holdren. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN P. HOLDREN, DIRECTOR, OFFICE 

OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY, EXECUTIVE OFFICE 

OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, Chairman Nelson, Chairman Rockefeller, 

Ranking Member Hutchison, members of the Committee, it’s certainly a pleasure to be here to talk about this very important agenda. 

I’ll be talking about the Obama Administration’s response to the 

America COMPETES Act, to date, our support for reauthorizing 

that Act, and, of course, about the important investments in research and development and science, engineering, technology, 

mathematics education that the Administration is proposing in 

order to continue to fulfill the vision of that Act, going forward. 

It was just a little more than half a century ago that Americans, 

gazing into the night sky, saw the glint of a Russian satellite, the 

first artificial satellite to orbit the Earth, and we quickly grasped 

the significance of that event, as a Nation. And we responded aggressively with massive new investments in research and development, and a new commitment to science and math education. We 

created NASA, we created what was originally our ARPA, now 

6 

DARPA—the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. We 

built new labs and manufacturing facilities to tackle the scientific 

and engineering challenges that suddenly seemed to loom so large. 

And I would suggest that today we face another Sputnik moment, if you will, but one that is not so easily recognized, because 

the indications of it are more diverse and they’re more subtle than 

seeing a Russian satellite overhead when we had none. But, the 

relevant facts include some that have already been mentioned by 

Senator Hutchison and others. America has fallen from first in the 

world in broadband penetration to a place in the middle of the pack 

of developed nations. In science education, one of the widely used 

international assessments shows American 15-year-olds ranked 

25th in math and 21st in science, among OECD countries. 

And again, Senator Hutchison mentioned the Science and Engineering Indicators 2010. That report shows, among other things, 

that for the first time, in 2008, non- Americans were granted more 

U.S. patents than Americans were. 

We can do better than that. America still can, and indeed must, 

be an innovation machine. Clearly, technological and economic superiority are not a birthright; it’s something that, in the past, we’ve 

earned as a result of smart investments in fundamental science 

and targeted investments in the next big things. And it’s something 

we have to get serious about earning again so that we can continue 

to lead the world in the next round of modernization and creativity. 

That’s why the President set the ambitious goal of lifting the 

sum of public and private research and development in this country 

to 3 percent of gross domestic product. That would exceed, for the 

first time, the level of R&D investment at the height of the Space 

Race. It’s why the President is committed to moving American students from the middle to the top of the pack in performance in 

STEM fields, and to be number one in the world again, when it 

comes to college graduation rates, as we were just a few decades 

ago. 

The America COMPETES Act has been a very helpful tool in the 

early stages of attaining these goals and related ones. The President and the Vice President both supported the original COMPETES Act when they were Senators, and the Obama Administration is strongly supportive of Congressional efforts to reauthorize 

that important Act this year. 

But, the Administration has not waited for COMPETES to be reauthorized to continue to pursue the goals of the Act. And specifically, in his first year in office, the President has taken a variety 

of key steps to move America forward with this agenda by getting 

the key science and technology agencies—NSF, the DOE Office of 

Science, the NIST labs—back on track toward doubled budgets, by 

investing record sums in research and development, through the 

Fiscal Year 09 and 10 budgets and the Recovery Act, as well as 

calling for further targeted budget increases for Fiscal Year 2011; 

in launching a comprehensive strategy for American innovation, 

which lays out a practical path to rejuvenating American industry 

and creating millions of high-quality jobs; inaugurating Educate to 

Innovate, a public-private partnership in STEM education that has 

already raised more than half-a-billion dollars in commitments of 

cash and in-kind services to revitalize science and engineering eduVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:54 Feb 28, 2011 Jkt 064707 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\64707.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
7 

cation programs in schools; unveiling a new plan for the U.S. space 

program that will extend the life of the International Space Station, increase investments in game-changing technologies for 

human exploration of space beyond low-Earth orbit, and with budgets that match the goals; sharply ramping up support for clean energy and energy efficiency research, development, demonstration, 

and deployment, including standing up the Advanced Research 

Projects Agency for Energy—ARPA–E. 

The America COMPETES Act can and should remain a valuable 

tool to support these and related strategies for enabling innovation 

to propel this country into a better future. 

Both the America COMPETES Act and the 2007 ‘‘Rising Above 

the Gathering Storm’’ report, again, already mentioned here, emphasized the need for enhanced Federal efforts in science, technology, engineering, and math education. As I noted earlier, President Obama is committed to bringing American students back to 

the top in this domain. His Fiscal Year 2011 budget would put a 

billion dollars into improving math and science achievement among 

K-through-12 students, and $3.7 billion into STEM education, overall. And that Educate to Innovate Initiative has already attracted, 

as I mentioned above, an extraordinary amount of corporate and 

philanthropic support for improving STEM education facilities, 

practices, and teacher preparation. Reauthorization of COMPETES 

is a clear opportunity for Congress to reinforce these efforts, going 

forward. 

Let me note briefly, before closing, that among the responsibilities the America COMPETES Act assigned to the Office of Science 

and Technology Policy in the White House was a requirement that 

the director, in consultation with others, develop an overarching set 

of principles to ensure the communication and open exchange of research data collected by Federal scientists, and to prevent the suppression or distortion of such research findings. 

The Act also required that OSTP develop specific policies and 

procedures regarding the public release of data, consistent with the 

principles established in the Act, a task that the last Administration did not, in fact, fulfill. 

President Obama initiated the remedy in March of last year, 

issuing a Presidential memorandum that promulgated six principles to, quote, ‘‘restore scientific integrity in government decisionmaking,’’ close quote, and tasked me, as OSTP’s Director, with 

making recommendations for how to ensure scientific integrity 

throughout the Executive Branch. 

A substantial effort has ensued, as described in my written statement, but the task has proved more challenging than expected, and 

the work is not yet complete. I do expect to have those recommendations completed shortly, and I expect that they will more 

than satisfy the remaining responsibilities in this domain, under 

the COMPETES Act. 

In conclusion, I know this committee shares with me, and, of 

course, with the President, the important goal of advancing America’s standing in the world as a leader in innovation and competitiveness. It’s a goal I think you’ll all agree transcends partisan politics because it is so important and so central to this Nation’s wellbeing. 

8 

I look forward to working with all of the members on this committee toward reauthorization of the COMPETES Act, and, more 

broadly, on all that we can do together to achieve the potential of 

science, technology, innovation, and STEM education, to strengthen 

our country and improve our world. 

I thank you for your attention, and I’ll be happy to try to answer 

your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Holdren follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN P. HOLDREN, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF SCIENCE

AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY, EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED

STATES

Chairman Rockefeller, Ranking Member Hutchison, and members of the Committee, it is my distinct privilege to be here with you today to discuss the Obama 

Administration’s responses to the America COMPETES Act to date, my support for 

the Committee’s interest in reauthorizing the Act, and the important investments 

in R&D and science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education 

the Administration is proposing in order to continue to fulfill the vision of the Act 

going forward. 

A little more than a half a century ago, Americans gazed astonished into the night 

sky at the glint of a Russian satellite arcing overhead—the first artificial satellite 

to orbit the Earth. As a nation, we quickly grasped the significance of that signal 

event, and responded aggressively with massive new investments in research and 

development (R&D) and a new commitment to science, technology, engineering, and 

mathematics (STEM) education. We created NASA and DARPA, and we built laboratories and manufacturing facilities—some as small as classrooms and others 

larger than football fields—to tackle the scientific and engineering challenges that 

suddenly loomed large. 

Hardly more than a decade after that blinking wake-up call, Americans were 

walking on the surface of the moon, having leapfrogged Russia and every other advanced nation with a technological tour de force that laid the foundation for a solid 

50 years of economic superiority. That burst of activity led to the creation of the 

Internet, microchips, the Global Positioning System (GPS), revolutionary improvements in medical technologies, and much more; created enormous entrepreneurial 

opportunities and countless jobs; and enabled a standard of living never before 

available to such a broad swath of any nation. 

Today we are at another such moment in history, again faced with a fundamental 

innovation challenge. China, South Korea, India, and other nations are focusing increased attention on advanced manufacturing, renewable energy, and other technologies of the future, even as America’s scientific and technological dominance has 

eroded. 

The challenge we face may not be obvious at first glance. Last year, as they have 

in so many years, Americans won the vast majority of Nobel Prizes in the sciences. 

Not only that, but more so than in many other years it was easy to see how these 

winners’ achievements had changed our lives for the better. 

One won his prize for seminal work in fiber optics, the field of science at the heart 

of today’s national broadband networks, which are streaming this hearing live to 

millions of Americans who cannot be here in Washington to see their government 

at work—networks that today support $900 billion of the American economy and 

will continue to prime this Nation’s economic pump in ever greater degrees as this 

Administration, through the Recovery Act and our soon-to-be-released national 

broadband plan, races to lay thousands of miles more of cable every year. 

Another Nobel winner was honored for having invented the charged coupled device or CCD, which is at the heart of the digital cameras that are embedded in our 

cell phones as well as every Flickr picture on the web, and the YouTube videos 

viewed more than a billion times on the Internet every day. 

But these Nobel winners and, for the most part, their fellow awardees, did their 

work decades ago—based on investments America made in the 1950s, 1960s, and 

1970s. 

Today we face a new Sputnik moment, albeit one not so easily recognized because 

the indications are more diverse and subtle than seeing a Russian satellite overhead 

when we had none. But consider: 

9 

1OECD, OECD Broadband Portal, Data on Broadband Subscribers per 100 inhabitants, 2009 

Q2 data. 2 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Program for International Student Assessment, Highlights from PISA 2006: Performance of U.S. 15-Year-Old Students in Science and Mathematics Literacy in an International Context, December 2007. 3 NSF, Science and Engineering Indicators 2010, Chapter 6, based on U.S. Patent and Trademark Office data. 

• America has fallen from 1st in the world in broadband penetration to the middle of the pack among developed nations.1

• In science education, one widely used international assessment shows American 

15-year-olds ranked 25th in math and 21st in science among OECD countries.2

• For the first time, in 2008, non-Americans were granted more U.S. patents than 

Americans.3

We can do better. America still can, and indeed must, be an innovation machine. 

Clearly, however, technological and economic superiority is not our birthright. It is 

something that in the past we have earned—earned as a result of smart investments in fundamental science and targeted investments in the next big things—and 

it is something we must get serious about earning again, so we can continue to lead 

the world in the next round of modernization and creativity, just as we have in the 

decades following Sputnik. 

That is why the President has set the bold and ambitious long-term goal of lifting 

the sum of public and private investments in research and development in the 

United States to 3 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP)—to exceed, for the first 

time, the level of R&D investment at the height of the space race. Investing in innovation is not a luxury today—it is a necessity. 

That is also why the President is committed to moving American students from 

the middle to the top of the pack in STEM education, and to be number 1 in the 

world once again when it comes to college graduation rates, as we were just a few 

decades ago. 

And it is why—for reasons ranging from economic growth to environmental protection to enhanced national security—this Administration is determined to stoke 

the fires of American ingenuity, to support the workforce of today as well as the 

entrepreneurs and industries of tomorrow, to keep the pipeline of American productivity fully pressurized and provide the jobs, the security, and the position of global 

leadership that previous generations worked so hard to attain. 

The America COMPETES Act has been a helpful tool in the early stages of attaining these goals. And the Administration is strongly supportive of congressional efforts to reauthorize this important Act this year. But the time has come to refine 

that initial approach—to strengthen the parts that have the most capacity to leverage the American economy and secure America’s future and perhaps to trim some 

parts that have proven to be less valuable. 

Meanwhile, this Administration has not waited for COMPETES to be reauthorized to continue pursuit of the goals the Act was created to achieve. In his first year 

in office, the President has taken key steps to move America forward by: 

• Getting key science and technology agencies (NSF, DOE Office of Science, and 

the NIST laboratories) back on track toward doubled budgets; 

• Investing record sums for R&D through 2009 and 2010 appropriations and the 

Recovery Act, as well as calling for further targeted budget increases in 2011; 

• Launching a comprehensive Strategy for American Innovation that lays out a 

practical path to rejuvenating American industry and creating millions of highquality jobs; 

• Inaugurating Educate to Innovate—a public-private partnership in STEM education that has already raised more than half a billion dollars in cash and inkind donations to revitalize science and engineering programs in schools; 

• Unveiling a new plan for the U.S. space program that extends the life of the 

International Space Station and increases investments in game-changing technologies for human exploration of space beyond low Earth orbit, with budgets 

that match the goals; 

• Sharply ramping up support for clean-energy and energy-efficiency research, development, demonstration, and deployment, including standing up the Advanced 

Research Projects Agency for Energy, or ARPA–E. 

The America COMPETES Act can and should remain a valuable tool to support 

these and other strategies for propelling America into a better future. 

10 

Reauthorization of the America COMPETES Act 

The Obama Administration believes that the America COMPETES Act should be 

reauthorized this year so that the Nation can continue to build on the achievements 

of the original Act. The President and the Vice President, who supported the original COMPETES Act when they were Senators, share my belief that the COMPETES Act provides a valuable roadmap to guide Federal policies in innovation, 

competitiveness, and STEM education. We are supportive of this committee’s efforts 

to reauthorize this landmark act this year, and we very much look forward to working with the Committee to make the reauthorization a reality during this session 

of Congress. 

The original COMPETES Act identified three key science agencies—the National 

Science Foundation, the DOE Office of Science, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology laboratories—as essential to our Nation’s future prosperity and 

to preserving America’s place as the world leader in science and technology. Last 

April, in a speech at the National Academy of Sciences, President Obama announced 

his President’s Plan for Science and Innovation, which would place these agencies’ 

budgets on the doubling path that Congress called for in COMPETES. Although the 

previous Administration supported an effort to double these agencies’ budgets between 2006 and 2016, the appropriated budgets fell short in 2007 and 2008. But 

last year, this Congress and this Administration worked together to finally put 

these agencies on a doubling trajectory, and the 2011 Budget maintains that trajectory with a 6.6 percent increase for their combined budgets, totaling $13.3 billion. 

The reauthorization of the COMPETES Act is an opportunity for Congress to sustain the vision of doubling the budgets of these three agencies. The authorizations 

in the original COMPETES Act extend through Fiscal Year (FY) 2010. For FY 2011 

and beyond, the Administration supports authorizations for NSF, DOE Office of 

Science, and the NIST laboratory programs at the budget levels outlined in the 2011 

Budget, which would achieve the President’s vision of doubling these budgets by 

2017. 

I would also like to call attention to the 2011 Budget’s strong support for NIST’s 

external programs. The 2011 Budget requests $130 million for the Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP), a $5 million increase over the 2010 enacted 

level consistent with the Administration’s plan to double funding by 2015. The 2011 

Budget also requests $80 million, a $10 million increase over 2010, for the Technology Innovation Program (TIP), created and authorized in the America COMPETES Act. These NIST programs are important components of A Framework for 

American Manufacturing, the comprehensive strategy for supporting American manufacturers announced in December. 

The President’s FY 2011 Budget proposes $300 million for the Advanced Research 

Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA–E), created and authorized in the America COMPETES Act and first funded in the Recovery Act. ARPA–E supports high-risk, highreward research to yield revolutionary changes in how we produce, distribute, and 

use energy. ARPA–E announced its first set of grants last October and in 2010 will 

make additional awards with Recovery Act funds. The proposed allocation in the 

2011 Budget would allow ARPA–E to make additional awards next year. 

I would also like to call the Committee’s attention to the 2011 Budget’s strong 

support for other Federal agencies whose investments in science help underpin this 

country’s economic competitiveness, environmental quality, and national security. 

For example: 

• The Budget proposes in FY 2011 $5.0 billion for NASA’s science portfolio and 

$1.15 billion for NASA’s Aeronautics and Space Research and Technology portfolio, increases of more than $500 million in Science and about $400 million for 

Space Technology compared to 2010 (Space Technology includes the Innovative 

Partnership Programs (IPP) budget, which was funded at $175.2 million in FY 

2010). The Science increase is primarily in Earth Science to enable continuity 

of key climate observations and accelerate Earth observing science missions recommended in the National Research Council’s (NRC’s) decadal survey, which 

defines the priorities of the Nation’s earth science community. 

• The NOAA budget of $5.6 billion is an increase of $806 million over the 2010 

enacted level to allow NOAA to strengthen the scientific basis for environmental 

decisionmaking, improve weather and climate services that protect life and 

property, invest more heavily in restoring our oceans and coasts, and ensure 

satellite continuity. 

• The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) would receive $3.1 

billion for longer-term breakthrough research. 

11 

• The 2011 Budget sustains DOD’s basic research (‘‘6.1’’) with a record commitment of $2.0 billion, and provides increases for research in high priority areas 

such as night vision, cybersecurity, enhanced GPS, deployable force protection, 

nano-manufacturing, and advanced distributed learning. 

• And the 2011 Budget provides $32.1 billion for NIH, an increase of $1.0 billion, 

or 3.2 percent above the 2010 enacted level, to support the discovery of knowledge and therapies that will lead to better health outcomes for all Americans 

through a robust program of intramural and extramural research, education, 

and training. 

The Administration would encourage the Congress to provide the requested 

growth for these programs. 

Let me offer here a few thoughts on how Congress might strengthen the parts 

of the COMPETES Act that have the most capacity to leverage the American economy and secure America’s future. A major strength of the original COMPETES Act 

was its authorizations of Federal policies to encourage innovation and competitiveness. Just as the original COMPETES Act authorized the creation of ARPA–E and 

laid the foundation for its eventual launch in April of last year, the reauthorization 

of the COMPETES Act is an opportunity for Congress to lay the foundations for 

other innovative approaches to addressing the challenges we face. 

For example, Congress has the opportunity to authorize DOE’s Energy Innovation 

Hubs. The 2011 Budget includes support for four Energy Innovation Hubs to accelerate cross-disciplinary R&D for transforming advances in energy science into commercially deployable materials, devices, and systems: three appropriated by Congress last year to advance fuels from sunlight, modeling and simulation for nuclear 

reactors, and energy-efficient building systems design; and one new Hub to conduct 

R&D on batteries and energy storage. Congress also has the opportunity to authorize NSF’s proposal for $12 million in the 2011 Budget to support a new Innovation 

Ecosystem where universities will partner with other institutions to increase the impact of the most promising innovations through commercialization, industry alliances, and start-up formation. 

Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education 

Both the America COMPETES Act and the 2007 Rising Above the Gathering 

Storm report produced by the National Academies called attention to the need for 

enhanced Federal efforts in STEM education. And the President has been emphatic 

about his commitment, which I share, to increase the participation and the performance of American students in STEM subjects and to raising the international ranking of our students from the middle to the top of the pack over the next decade. 

Over the past year, OSTP has been working with the White House Domestic Policy 

Council, the Department of Education, and a number of science and technology 

agencies to identify and promote concrete actions to help meet these ambitious 

goals. 

The 2011 Budget invests $3.7 billion in STEM education programs across the Federal Government, including an historic $1 billion commitment to improve math and 

science achievement among K–12 students—that latter figure an increase of more 

than 40 percent over the FY 2010 level. The impact of these investments will be 

magnified by ‘‘Educate to Innovate,’’ an initiative launched by the President to motivate and inspire young people to excel in STEM subjects. This campaign has already 

mobilized more than $500 million in financial and in-kind support from companies, 

foundations, philanthropies, universities, non-profit organizations, and grassroots 

volunteers. 

In addition to these leveraged investments, the Administration has made great 

strides in integrating STEM education into broader education programs. For example, the $4.35 billion Race to the Top fund in the Recovery Act provides a competitive advantage to states that commit to a comprehensive strategy to improve STEM 

education. The 2011 Budget, by providing an additional $1.35 billion in funding for 

Race to the Top, builds on these historic investments to create state capacity, focus 

on student achievement, and help prepare America’s students to graduate ready for 

college and careers. 

The Administration’s vision for STEM education includes improving student outcomes by using the latest educational technologies and cognitive and learning research results, but we also want to ensure that we are addressing the very basic 

issues that limit student access to high-quality STEM education. Reauthorization of 

COMPETES is an opportunity for Congress to reinforce our efforts to improve access 

to high-quality, cutting-edge STEM equipment and infrastructure in K–12 classrooms, as well as access to well trained teachers and counselors. (Both of these eleVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:54 Feb 28, 2011 Jkt 064707 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\64707.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
12 

ments were part of the historic investments made in R&D and STEM education 

through the National Defense Education Act of 1958.) 

The Obama Administration is committed to investing in and scaling up what 

works in STEM education, while improving coordination and minimizing duplication 

among Federal STEM education programs. The Department of Education and the 

NSF are leading an effort, with active OSTP participation, to increase the impact 

of the Federal STEM investments I’ve outlined above by: (1) developing an aligned 

strategy that emphasizes key agency capacities and takes advantage of the new energy and interest at the Department of Education in partnering with science agencies that have both expertise and substantial investments in STEM education; (2) 

clarifying evidence standards used to evaluate program impact and aligning our 

work on evidence and evaluation so that we can compare the effectiveness of programs across Federal agencies and Departments and identify the most promising 

STEM efforts for further validation, testing, and suitability for scale-up; (3) a locus 

of resources at the agency level, in particular within the Department of Education, 

to allow effective interagency coordination and coherence on STEM education; and 

(4) specific strategies and efforts to ensure opportunities in STEM education for traditionally underrepresented groups, such as women and girls, minorities, and students with disabilities, realizing that the diversity of our Nation is a strength as 

we look for innovative design solutions to compete in an increasingly demanding 

global marketplace. 

Scientific Integrity 

Among the responsibilities that the America COMPETES Act bequeathed to 

OSTP was a requirement that the Director, in consultation with the Director of 

OMB and others, develop an overarching set of principles to ensure the communication and open exchange of research data collected by scientists employed by Federal 

civilian agencies and to prevent the suppression or distortion of such research findings. The Act also required OSTP to develop specific policies and procedures regarding the public release of data consistent with the principles established in the Act, 

a task that the last Administration did not fulfill. 

In March 2009, President Obama released a Presidential Memorandum that 

iterated six principles ‘‘to restore scientific integrity in government decisionmaking’’ 

and tasked the Director of OSTP with making recommendations for Presidential action designed to guarantee scientific integrity throughout the executive branch, 

based on those principles. In response to that call, OSTP organized a comprehensive 

strategy for developing such recommendations, including creation of an interagency 

working group and the launch of a blog-based public forum to gather input from 

stakeholders. Based on a summary report by that working group, which incorporated public comments and a review of policies at various agencies, OSTP has 

been crafting recommendations on this topic that will be delivered to the President 

for his approval and, after that, released for implementation by relevant agencies. 

OSTP anticipates that these recommendations will more than satisfy the remaining 

responsibilities under America COMPETES. 

Conclusion 

I know this committee shares with me, and with the President, the important goal 

of advancing America’s standing in the world as a leader in innovation and competitiveness. It is a goal that I think you will all agree transcends partisan politics because, in fact, it is so important and so central to this Nation’s well-being. 

I look forward to working with all of the members on this committee toward the 

reauthorization of the COMPETES Act and, more broadly, on all that we can do together to achieve the potential of science, technology, innovation, and STEM education to strengthen our country and improve our world. 

Senator NELSON. Dr. Bement, see if you can confine it to 5 minutes so we can really get into the give-and-take on these questions. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ARDEN L. BEMENT, JR., DIRECTOR, 

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 

Dr. BEMENT. Chairman Rockefeller, Ranking Member Hutchison, 

and Senator Nelson, I’m pleased to appear before you. 

The essence of the President’s 2011 budget request for the National Science Foundation is to reaffirm the agency’s roots as the 

13 

Nation’s wellspring of new, transformative concepts through scientific innovation. 

NSF’s research and education agenda is both multifaceted and 

well rounded. It is designed very deliberately to support the Administration’s plan for making innovation a centerpiece of economic 

strength and future well-being. 

The main driver for this investment is a national innovation 

strategy. Nothing speaks more to what NSF is and does than the 

Administration’s commitment to fundamental research. That’s emphasized throughout the budget. When you talk about the building 

blocks of innovation, you talk about NSF. 

You will also see at the forefront of educating the next generation of 21st-century knowledge and skills, NSF is present. It’s 

through the integration of education with research that we prepare 

the talent that goes into academia and also into the private sector 

to be the innovators and the entrepreneurs of the future. This is 

NSF’s greatest contribution to the Nation’s innovation system, and 

it’s a priority that the Administration has placed on the agency, 

and one that we take quite seriously. 

The Advanced Technological Education Program supports new 

and enhanced 2-year college programs that educate technicians for 

the high-technology workforce. The Graduate Research Fellowship 

and Faculty Early Career Development program supports students 

and early career investigators to foster the Nation’s next generation of scientists and engineers. Climate-change education addresses learning at all levels; it is designed to stimulate careers in climate science. NSF’s programs also support next-generation information technology and secure cyberspace. The agency will support 

the interagency Networking and Information Technology R&D Program, at $1.17 billion. 

Overcoming challenges inherent in today’s great scientific questions will require a new computer revolution to overcome the physical restrictions of today’s silicon chip-based technology. So, there 

are some innovation activities and initiatives within the budget 

that will lead to new technologies and new capabilities for information technology, especially NSF’s Science and Engineering Beyond 

Moore’s Law program, which is a multidisciplinary research program designed to enhance our Nation’s economic competitiveness. 

NSF must continue to innovate in tackling the large-scale scientific and engineering challenges of our age, including understanding the nature and scope of changes in the Earth’s climate. 

NSF contributes multiple resources to support the U.S. Global 

Change Research Program and other interagency initiatives that 

are helping us understand and confront the global challenge of a 

changing climate. 

Also in 2011, NSF will spend $766 million on a portfolio of activities called ‘‘Science, Engineering, and Education for Sustainability.’’ 

It will seek integrated approaches to increase U.S. energy independence, enhance environmental stewardship, and reduce energy 

use and carbon intensity while generating continued economic 

growth. 

With an investment of $19 million, NSF will jointly fund RE– 

ENERGYSE with the Department of Energy to prepare as many as 

8,500 highly trained young scientists and engineers for clean enVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:54 Feb 28, 2011 Jkt 064707 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\64707.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
14 

1http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/digest10/global.cfm#4. 

ergy careers by 2015. Additionally, RE–ENERGYSE will provide 

training of technicians for clean energy industries. 

One project that is very important is the NEON project, which is in our budget, for $20 million, under our Major Research, Equipment, and Facilities Construction account. Now, this facility will 

collect data on the effects of climate change, changes in land use, 

and invasive species, over a period of decades, rather than centuries, and over the span of regions—on a regional basis, rather 

than on a global basis. NEON will be the first observatory network 

designed to detect and enable forecasting of ecological change at 

the continental scale, over multiple decades. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, as this will likely 

be the last time I testify before you, before my June 1st departure 

from the Foundation, I want to make certain you are aware of how 

deeply appreciative I am of your support over the past 9 years, as 

Director of NSF and NIST. 

Thank you very much. I’d be glad to answer your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Bement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ARDEN L. BEMENT, JR., DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Chairman Rockefeller, Ranking Member Hutchison, and members of the Committee, I am pleased to appear before you this afternoon. 

My testimony will focus principally on NSF’s FY 2011 Budget Request. In doing 

so, however, I will highlight those aspects of the Request that have direct bearing 

on the upcoming reauthorization of the America COMPETES Act (ACA). Since its 

enactment in August 2007, the ACA has informed the priorities and investment 

strategies at NSF. There are countless aspects of the FY 2011 request—from the 

commitment to young investigators to new approaches to fostering high-risk, highreward research—that directly reflect the ACA. 

This begins with the bottom line: The National Science Foundation (NSF) pro- poses a Fiscal Year 2011 investment of $7.42 billion, an increase of $552 million— 

or 8 percent—over the Fiscal Year 2010 amount. This increase reflects the Administration’s continued resolve to double funding for three key science agencies, including NSF. 

The National Science Foundation is the only Federal agency dedicated to the support of basic research and education across all fields of science and engineering. For 

60 years, we have been exploring the frontiers of scientific knowledge and extending 

the reach of engineering by encouraging, identifying, and funding the best ideas and 

most promising people. The high-risk, potentially transformative investments we 

make generate important discoveries and new technology, create and train a dynamic workforce, and spark the curiosity and creativity of millions. Our investments 

in research and education help ensure that our Nation remains globally competitive, 

prosperous, and secure. 

An investment in the National Science Foundation is a direct investment in 

America’s economic security. In fact, without a solid basic research foundation for 

our high-tech economy, no economic security is possible. Basic research underpins 

all of the technology that constitutes the lifeblood of today’s global market. America’s sustained economic prosperity is based in part on technological innovation resulting from previous fundamental science and engineering research. Innovation 

and technology are engines of the American economy, and advances in science and 

engineering provide the fuel. 

While the United States still far outpaces the world in its level of public and private R&D investment and research output, our counterparts around the globe are 

well aware of the importance of funding R&D. As is highlighted in the just released 

2010 Science and Engineering Indicators, the world’s R&D expenditures have been 

on an 11-year doubling path, growing faster than total global economic output. 

While the growth of annual U.S. R&D expenditures averaged around 6 percent, 

China, for example, has invested in R&D at an annual growth of over 22 percent 

during the same period of time.1

15 

2 Augustine, Norman. Is America Falling off the Flat Earth? National Academies Press. 

Most recently, Norman Augustine, former CEO of Lockheed Martin, released a 

follow-up to ‘‘The Gathering Storm’’ report entitled, ‘‘Is America Falling Off the Flat 

Earth?’’ His message is clear: ‘‘Unless substantial investments are made to the engine of innovation—basic scientific research and development—the current generation may be the first in our country’s history to leave their children and grandchildren a lower sustained standard of living.’’ 2

For sixty years, NSF has been a steward of the Nation’s science and engineering 

enterprise. NSF investments in discovery, learning, and innovation have been important to increasing America’s economic strength, global competitiveness, national 

security and overall quality of life. 

With its relatively small size, NSF delivers an enormous ‘‘bang for the buck’’ of 

Federal Government research and development (R&D) investment. NSF represents 

just 4 percent of the total Federal budget for research and development, but accounts for over sixty percent of Federal support of non-life science basic research 

at academic institutions. For example, NSF’s share of Federal support for basic research in computer sciences at academic institutions in FY 2008 was over 80 percent. NSF is the research funding lifeline for many fields and emerging interdisciplinary areas at the frontiers of discovery. In fact, NSF is the only Federal agency that 

supports all fields of basic science and engineering research. 

NSF-funded research is characterized by its breadth. NSF prioritizes the integration of education into its research programs, and takes into account the broader societal impacts of the work it funds, such as the training that students and young 

researchers receive in the research process, and the educational opportunities the 

work and its people can then provide to the larger community of K–16 students and 

teachers and the general public. 

NSF’s comprehensive and flexible support of meritorious projects with broad societal impacts enables the Foundation to identify and foster both fundamental and 

transformative discoveries within and among fields of inquiry. NSF has the latitude 

to support emerging fields, high-risk ideas, interdisciplinary collaborations, and research that pushes, and even transforms, the very frontiers of knowledge. In these 

ways, NSF’s discoveries inspire the American public—and the world. 

NSF’s organization mirrors science and engineering. Its portfolio spans the biological sciences, computer and information science and engineering, engineering, 

geosciences, mathematics and physical sciences, and social, behavioral, and economic sciences—encompassing both research and education in these areas. NSF also 

carries out specific national responsibilities for polar programs, cyberinfrastructure, 

international science and engineering, and a range of responsibilities related to the 

Nation’s overall capabilities in science and engineering, including statistical resources on the overall U.S. and international R&D enterprise. The 25-member National Science Board sets the overall policies of the Foundation. 

The cornerstone of NSF is the merit-based, competitive process that fosters the 

highest standards of excellence and accountability—standards that have been emulated at funding agencies around the world. 

2011 Budget Request Highlights 

At NSF, we understand that new discoveries are a driving force behind societal 

progress. As the Nation’s premier funding agency for basic research, our mission is 

to advance the frontiers of knowledge, where high-risk, high-reward research can 

lay the foundation for revolutionary technologies and tackle complex societal problems. The NSF budget for 2011 reflects this vital agenda, and I’m pleased to present 

it to you today. 

Let me begin with the big picture. As noted earlier, the President is requesting $7.42 billion for the NSF in FY 2011. That’s an increase of almost $552 million, or 

8 percent above the current 2010 appropriated amount. While it seems like a large 

increase, this level is necessary to fulfill the President’s vision for doubling the National Science Foundation’s budget. This increased investment will reinforce NSF’s 

leadership in basic science and engineering and allow us to preserve America’s preeminence in the global technology economy. 

In this year’s proposed budget, funding levels increase for every NSF appropriations account. Research and Related Activities investments increase by 8.2 percent, 

and our Education and Human Resources account is increased by 2.2 percent. We 

need rapid progress in these areas to stimulate the discoveries in research we need 

to maintain our standing in the global marketplace, and to keep our students engaged and ready to perform in the global workforce. Our budget includes increases 

for every Directorate and Office within NSF. But, as with any budget, the FY 2011 

Request reflects tough choices and clear priorities. It recognizes NSF’s unique naVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:54 Feb 28, 2011 Jkt 064707 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\64707.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
16 

tional responsibility for supporting basic research, our catalytic role in education, 

and the ongoing need for investments in stewardship. 

Here are highlights of some of the key investments we are emphasizing in our 

2011 budget. 

National Innovation Strategy 

NSF’s contribution to the Administration’s A Strategy for American Innovation, announced by the President in September 2009, stems from its longstanding role in 

strengthening the building blocks of American innovation. This begins with investing in fundamental research and educating the next generation of scientists and engineers. It also includes more focused research on topics that advance vital capabilities—such as sustainability, secure networks, and leading-edge technologies—and 

fostering and facilitating partnerships that reach across today’s global innovation 

enterprises. 

Maintain American Leadership in Fundamental Research. Since innovation depends on the foundation of earlier investments, NSF’s foremost responsibility in innovation is to continue to support fundamental research and education in all fields 

of science and engineering. The President’s Plan for Science and Innovation aims 

to double the Federal investment in three key basic research agencies over FY 2006 

levels. This investment will be vital to the effort to increase national R&D investments to 3 percent of Gross Domestic Product. 

Educate the Next Generation with 21st Century Knowledge and Skills While Creating a World-Class Workforce. Two NSF programs described in this Request support the Strategy’s educational goals. 

• The Graduate Research Fellowship (GRF) program, (16.4 percent increase to 

$158.24 million); an Administration priority, supports the development of the 

Nation’s future scientists and engineers. FY 2009 marked the beginning of a 

growth trajectory to triple the number of new awards made each year to 3,000 

by FY 2013. 

• RE-gaining our ENERGY Science and Engineering Edge (RE-ENERGYSE), 

($19.37 million) is located at the intersection of energy, environment, and 

human factors. It is a partnership between the Department of Energy (DOE) 

and the National Science Foundation that will help the Nation regain its leadership position in science and engineering by attracting and educating future scientists in the clean energy field. By 2015, RE-ENERGYSE would prepare up 

to 8,500 highly educated young scientists and engineers for clean energy careers 

and provide training for thousands of skilled clean energy technicians. 

Support Research for Next-Generation Information and Communications Technology, and Secure Cyberspace. While nobody can predict which of today’s fundamental discoveries will become tomorrow’s new products and processes, a number 

of NSF programs support the strategy’s goal to promote innovation. These include: 

• Science and Engineering Beyond Moore’s Law (SEBML), (50.3 percent increase 

to $70.18 million). In 10 to 20 years, current silicon technology will reach the 

limits of Moore’s Law—the empirical observation that computing power doubles 

roughly every 18 months. SEBML’s transformational activities accelerate innovation and create partnering opportunities with the private sector and national 

laboratories. 

• Cyber-enabled Discovery and Innovation (CDI), (2.8 percent increase to $105.48 

million) CDI supports transformative, multidisciplinary science and engineering 

research made possible by innovations and advances in computational concepts, 

methods, models, algorithms, and tools. CD I breakthroughs advance one or 

more of the three themes: From Data to Knowledge; Understanding Complexity 

in Natural, Built, and Social Systems; Building Virtual Organizations. 

• Cybersecurity, (10.6 percent increase to $144.55 million). NSF’s basic research 

into usability, theoretical foundations, and privacy supports the aims of the 

Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative. 

Encourage High-Growth and Innovation-Based Entrepreneurship, and 

Create Competitive Communities By Promoting Regional Innovation 

Clusters 

Partnerships for Innovation (PFI), (108.8 percent increase to $19.19 million). PFI 

brings together colleges, universities, state and local governments, private sector 

firms, and nonprofit organizations. Initiated in FY 2000, PFI connects new knowledge created in the discovery process to learning and innovation, while broadening 

the participation of people and institutions in NSF activities. PFI activities include 

research, technology transfer, building infrastructure for innovation, and workforce 

17 

education and training. In FY 2011, $12.0 million will be invested in a new ‘‘NSF 

Innovation Ecosystem’’ component, which aims to: increase the engagement of faculty and students across all disciplines in the innovation and entrepreneurship process; increase the impact of the most promising university innovations through commercialization, industry alliances, and start-up formulation; and develop a regional 

community that supports the ‘‘innovation ecosystem’’ around the university. It will 

draw on the individual entrepreneurial spirit of university faculty and students, as 

well as on the proven strengths of established technology centers such as Science 

and Technology Centers, Engineering Research Centers, Industry University Cooperative Research Centers, and others that link higher education institutions with investment and industry sectors. The Innovation Ecosystem initiative will focus on 

ways to maximize the innovation potential of scientific and engineering discovery in 

the university system and accelerate the technological innovation process with robust partnerships with the private sector. 

Grant Opportunities for Academic Liaison with Industry (GOALI), (0.4 percent increase to $18.58 million). GOALI seeks to increase partnerships between the academic and industrial communities and provide opportunities to accelerate innovation by strengthening the discovery knowledge base for a quicker translation of discovery to societal benefit. The program leverages its budget with support from other 

NSF academic research programs by a factor of four to one. 

Centers programs, (8.9 percent increase to $313.78 million). NSF supports over 

100 centers in seven interdisciplinary program areas. Centers exploit opportunities 

in science, engineering, and technology in which the complexity of the research 

problem or the resources needed to solve the problem require the advantages of 

scope, scale, duration, equipment, facilities, and students. Centers often leverage 

their activities through partnerships with academic institutions, national laboratories, industrial organizations, and/or other public/private entities, and via international collaborations, as appropriate. 

Learning and Workforce Development 

For America to continue to lead the world in science and technology innovation, 

it must have the most knowledgeable and skilled science, technology, engineering, 

and mathematics (STEM) workers in the world. The National Innovation Strategy 

includes programs that support scientists and engineers at the beginning of their 

careers, prepare the next generation of Americans to understand and meet environmental challenges, and educate the next generation with 21st century knowledge 

and skills while creating a world-class workforce. This is not just the smart thing 

to do—it is the right thing to do for our country. By drawing on the spectrum of 

talents and backgrounds of America’s diverse populace, we can bring new approaches to scientific discovery, new vantage points to engineering design, and new 

insights to innovation. This is essential as we increasingly find ourselves in competition with scientist and engineers and entrepreneurs from all corners of the globe, 

and as we strive to remain competitive in the diverse international marketplace. 

Administration Priority Programs 

The FY 2011 budget maintains strong levels of support for four key Administration priority programs which were strongly supported in the FY 2010 Budget Request. The Graduate Research Fellowship (GRF) Program and the Faculty Early Career Development Program (CAREER) support the most promising students and 

early-career researchers in order to cultivate the next generation of STEM knowledge workers. Climate Change Education (CCE) targets learning at all levels and 

is designed to develop the next generation of skilled, educated, and climate-savvy 

Americans. Advanced Technological Education (ATE) supports new and enhanced 

two-year college programs that educate technicians for the high-technology workforce. 

• The Graduate Research Fellowship (GRF) program supports the development of 

the Nation’s future scientists and engineers. As noted earlier, FY 2009 marked 

the beginning of a growth trajectory to triple the number of new awards made 

each year to 3,000 by FY 2013. 

• The Faculty Early Career Development Program (CAREER) develops the future 

scientific and technical workforce through support of young faculty who are 

dedicated to integrating the excitement of research with inspired teaching and 

enthusiastic learning. 

• Climate Change Education is designed to develop the next generation of skilled, 

educated, and climate-savvy Americans. It catalyzes activity at the national 

level in four strands of STEM education: preparation of a climate science profesVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:54 Feb 28, 2011 Jkt 064707 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\64707.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
18 

sional workforce; public understanding and engagement; resources for learning; 

and local and national STEM education policy. 

• Advanced Technological Education (ATE) supports new and enhanced two-year 

college programs that educate technicians for the high-technology workforce. It 

is on a growth trajectory begun in FY 2010 to increase the program’s funding 

to $100 million by FY 2013. 

Learning and Broadening Participation 

The integration of research and education has been a hallmark of NSF since its 

inception. The Foundation’s investments do double duty—generating new knowledge 

and producing the next generation of scientists, technologists, engineers, mathematicians, and educators. Preparing a STEM workforce ready to lead innovation 

and address national needs requires the involvement of the full range of talent and 

diversity in the Nation, specifically students from traditionally underrepresented 

groups. This is not just the right thing to do—it is the smart thing to do for our 

country. By drawing on the spectrum of talents and backgrounds of America’s diverse populace, we can bring new approaches to scientific discovery, new vantage 

points to engineering design, new insights to innovation. This is essential as we increasing find ourselves in competition with scientist, engineers, and entrepreneurs 

from all corners of the globe, and as we strive to remain competitive in the diverse 

international marketplace. 

The FY 2011 Budget maintains strong support for agency-wide efforts to bring a 

fuller array of perspectives and participants to advancing discovery and innovation. 

Investments across NSF seek to broaden participation among people, institutions, 

and geographical regions. 

Comprehensive Broadening Participation of Undergraduate Institutions in STEM 

(CBPUI), ($103.10 million). With an FY 2011 investment of $103.10 million, NSF 

will implement a new consolidated program, which realigns and builds on existing 

programs: Historically Black Colleges and Universities Undergraduates program 

(HBCU–UP), Louis Stokes Alliances for Minority Participation (LSAMP), Tribal colleges and universities (TCUP), and Hispanic-serving institutions. This new program’s objective is to help build sustainable partnerships and alliances among institutions with strong track records in producing underrepresented STEM graduates, 

thereby building capacity for the STEM field across a range of institutions. These 

comprehensive partnerships will increase the institutions’ competitiveness by: 

• Strengthening STEM curricular offerings, enhancing STEM faculty development, and increasing competencies and competitiveness of students 

• Transforming infrastructure, operations, and resources 

• Increasing support for and engagement in frontier scientific research and access 

to advanced research instrumentation, and maximizing undergraduate research 

opportunities 

• Facilitating expanded collaboration between scientists and educators at minority-serving institutions with those at majority institutions 

• Stimulating innovation and creativity from the Nation’s education and research 

enterprise through support of effective collaborations between minority-serving 

and majority institutions, especially research-intensive universities with NSF 

Science and Technology Centers (STC), Materials Research Science and Engineering Centers (MRSEC), and Engineering Research Centers (ERC). 

Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR), (4.9 percent 

increase to $154.36 million) NSF remains a leader in efforts to broaden participation 

in science and engineering in all states and regions. EPSCoR’s goal is to stimulate 

sustainable improvements in research participation from institutions in geographical areas that are underrepresented in NSF activities. Strategies include supporting research infrastructure improvement, co-funding of disciplinary and interdisciplinary research, and conducting outreach and workshops. This growth mirrors 

the overall growth for the R&RA account for FY 2009 through FY 2011. 

Government-wide Strategy for STEM Education. In addition to its support for the 

programs and priorities already mentioned, NSF is actively engaged as a leading 

participant in the coordinated, government-wide strategy for STEM education. NSF 

is poised to build on previous and emerging collaborations with the U.S. Department 

of Education, and to use NSF’s unique experience and knowledge base in STEM 

education to identify research and evaluation priorities and to consider appropriate 

standards of evidence for various stages of research and development cycles. The 

agencies are embarking jointly on possible collaborations and complementary initiatives to help states improve K–12 student learning in STEM by building and sharVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:54 Feb 28, 2011 Jkt 064707 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\64707.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
19 

ing knowledge of effective curricular and instructional practices, and how they can 

be implemented at scale. 

NSF K–16 Stem Education Priorities 

An overarching commitment in all of NSF’s K–16 investments is to address current and emerging educational challenges that have bearing on the preparation of 

a STEM workforce and a STEM-literate society. In particular, NSF K–16 investments are intended to catalyze innovation that improves learning, to validate what 

we think we already know, to scale what works, and to build a knowledge base 

through research and evaluation about how to improve STEM learning for all. These 

investments are made through several core programs that address K–16 education. 

NSF has the following four priorities for K–16 education: 

• improving K–16 education through increased research and evaluation to allow 

for more strategic efforts to increase STEM learning, support the creation of effective assessment tools and approaches (including tools for measuring teacher 

knowledge) that enable teachers and instructors to examine and improve student learning across the K–16 level; and 

• supporting topical areas of national importance, namely climate and energy 

science, into the K–16 educational enterprise; 

• preparing the STEM workforce (including teachers) to be the innovators of tomorrow by: improving recruitment, retention, and program completion of undergraduates in two- and four-year institutions; improving undergraduate instruction on the basis of research evidence; and providing scholarships and fellowships. A particular focus here is on specific strategies and programs for increasing the participation of underrepresented minority students in STEM; 

• exploring the potential of cyberlearning to enable new avenues of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education and to create new 

ways of studying the learning process itself. 

With the President’s clearly stated emphasis on the importance of improving 

STEM education, NSF will be a willing partner in working with other Federal agencies and departments to more effectively leverage our efforts. This is a great opportunity for us to work together, and to learn from each other in moving toward the 

goal the President has established—American students moving from the middle to 

the top of the pack within a decade. 

Investment Portfolios 

A portfolio investment strategy specifically addresses our role in addressing national challenges, such as stimulation of economic growth, promotion of innovative 

energy technologies which can help mitigate the impact of climate change, training 

of a world-class STEM workforce, and nurturing a scientifically literate population. 

A wide range of ongoing NSF investments contribute directly to energy technologies, understanding and mitigating climate change, and promoting green jobs. 

The FY 2011 Request presents a new framework for coordinating and enhancing 

these investments. To leverage NSF’s strengths toward addressing the challenges 

we face, NSF proposes to focus on the full portfolio of activities in two key areas 

of national importance. 

Science, Engineering, and Education for Sustainability (SEES), (16 percent increase to $765.5 million) will integrate NSF’s efforts in climate and energy science 

and engineering to generate the discoveries and capabilities needed to inform societal actions that lead to environmental and economic sustainability. SEES addresses 

recommendations from the August 2009 report from the National Science Board, 

Building A Sustainable Energy Future, which emphasized systems approaches to research programs, education and workforce development, public awareness and outreach, and the importance of partnerships with other agencies, states, universities, 

industry, and international organizations. 

Cyberlearning Transforming Education (CTE), (63 percent increase to $41.3 million). This new multidisciplinary research program is intended to fully capture the 

transformative potential of advanced learning technologies across the education enterprise. CTE will enable wholly new avenues of science, technology, engineering, 

and mathematics (STEM) learning for students and for workforce development. Collaborating with the Department of Education to bring advances in technology to 

learners at all educational levels will advance the Nation’s ability to study the 

learning process itself. 

Interagency Activities 

Networking and Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD), (7 

percent increase to $1.170 billion). NITRD coordinates the unclassified networking 

20 

and information technology research and development investments across thirteen 

Federal agencies. These agencies work together to develop a broad spectrum of advanced networking and IT capabilities to power Federal missions, economic competitiveness, and science, engineering, and technology leadership. NSF is a leader in the 

program and NITRD activities represent 16 percent of NSF’s FY 2011 budget. Funding foci for FY 2011 include large scale networking, cybersecurity and information 

assurance, high confidence software and systems, human-computer interaction and 

information management, and software design and productivity. 

National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), (4 percent decrease to $401.3 million). 

NSF actively participates in the NNI, which coordinates nanotechnology research 

and development with 25 departments and agencies across the Federal Government. 

Nanotechnology encompasses the systematic understanding, organization, manipulation, and control of matter at the atomic, molecular, and supramolecular levels in 

the size range of 1 to 100 nanometers. NSF’s investment in this activity increases 

in two key areas in FY 2011: nanomanufacturing (44 percent increase to $32.2 million) and Environmental, Health and Safety (11 percent increase to $33.0 million). 

NSF contributes to the three NNI Signature Initiatives focusing on: 

• Nanoelectronics for 2020 and Beyond (in partnership with DOD, NIST, DOE, 

DNI); 

• Sustainable Nanomanufacturing (in partnership with NIST, DOE, EPA, NIH); 

and 

• Nanotechnology Applications for Solar Energy (in partnership with DOE, NIST, 

DOD, DNI, USDA/NIFA). 

Additionally, NSF will further emphasize (beyond current support) the environmental, health and safety implications of nanotechnology, including development of 

predictive toxicity of nanomaterials, primarily through the support of three dedicated multidisciplinary centers and through support for approximately 60 additional 

research groups. 

The budget request includes, for example, further support for advanced manufacturing with an emphasis on nanomanufacturing, support for Science and Engineering Beyond Moore’s Law (an integral aspect of nanoelectronics for 2020 and beyond), 

and support for new and innovative means for addressing energy challenges (such 

as solar energy) through the SEES initiative. 

Stewardship Investments 

Since 2001, the number of proposals submitted to NSF has increased by over 50 

percent. In that time, staffing has increased by only 19 percent. To support NSF’s 

excellence in science and engineering research and education, NSF must invest in 

expanding and developing its workforce and resources to maintain a capable and responsive organization. 

The FY 2011 Request includes $468.8 million (+$39.1 million) for activities aimed 

at assuring that NSF will be able to effectively and efficiently manage its operations. Funds will support: 

• Staff, 40 additional full-time equivalents (for a total of 1,350 FTE) and eleven 

additional IPAs are requested; 

• IT investments, such as the expansion of Research.gov, modernization of the 

NSF financial system, and improvements in the reliability and security of NSF’s 

operational IT systems; and 

• Acquisition, ($2.0 million). This increase is part of the government-wide effort 

to strengthen the acquisition workforce. A key priority for NSF is improving capabilities in the pre-solicitation phase of major acquisitions. 

A specific emphasis in FY 2011 is promoting strong, independent evaluation that 

can inform policy decisions, program management, and performance assessment 

across NSF. NSF participates in the Administration’s government-wide initiative to 

strengthen program evaluation and performance measurement, and shares its commitment to post the status and findings of this and other important publicly available evaluations online. 

• High-Priority Performance Goal: NSF’s goal for the end of FY 2011 is to develop 

evaluation and assessment systems for STEM education and workforce programs that can provide findings leading to program re-design or consolidation. 

• Foundation-wide Planning, Analysis, and Evaluation. $1.0 million will support 

additional staff and associated resources for the establishment of a centralized 

NSF capability for assessment and evaluation. This would bring greater attention and analysis to such areas as comparing different types of programmatic 

21 

investments and identifying the most effective means for continuous improvement across the NSF portfolio. 

Concluding Remarks 

Mr. Chairman, I’ve touched on just a handful of programs found in NSF’s diverse 

and vibrant portfolio. NSF’s research and education activities support the Nation’s 

innovation enterprise. America’s present and future strength, prosperity and global 

preeminence depend directly on fundamental research. This is not merely rhetoric; 

the scientific and economic record of the past 30 years is proof that an investment 

in R&D is an investment in a secure future. 

NSF may not be the largest agency that funds science and engineering research, 

but our size serves to keep us nimble. Our portfolio is continually evolving as we 

identify and pursue new research at the frontiers of knowledge. An essential part 

of our mission is to constantly re-think old categories and traditional perspectives. 

This ability is more important than ever, as conventional boundaries constantly 

shift and disappear—boundaries between nations, between disciplines, between 

science and engineering, and between what is basic and what is applied. NSF, with 

its mandate to support all fields of science and engineering, is uniquely positioned 

to meet the needs of researchers exploring human knowledge at these interfaces, 

whether we’re organizing interdisciplinary conferences, enabling cyber-sharing of 

data and information, or encouraging new collaborations and partnerships across 

disciplinary and national borders. No other government agency comes close to our 

flexibility in STEM education and basic research. 

In today’s high-tech economy, the supply of new jobs is inextricably linked to the 

health of the Nation’s innovation endeavor. NSF is involved in all aspects of innovation; NSF not only funds the discoveries that directly become the innovations of tomorrow, we also fund discoveries that lead to still more discoveries that lead to the 

innovations of tomorrow, and, perhaps most critically, we train the technologists 

who dream up the discoveries that lead to the discoveries and innovations of tomorrow. 

Industry continues to rely upon government support for high-risk, high-reward 

basic research. It is no accident that our country’s most productive and competitive 

industries are those that benefited the most from sustained Federal investments in 

R&D—including computers and communications, semiconductors, biotechnology, 

and aerospace. 

As we look to the century ahead of us, we face the reality that the other nations 

in this world are eager to create jobs and robust economies for their citizens. In this 

context, ‘‘globalization’’ is shorthand for a complex, permanent, and challenging environment that calls for sustainable, long-term responses, not just short-term fixes. 

Despite some of the more pessimistic forecasts of some observers, I believe that 

America can continue to be on the leading edge of ideas and research. Through 

strong Federal leadership, we can maintain the standing of our businesses and universities. We must not only maintain our position, we must actively seek to increase 

our strengths: leadership in fundamental discovery, including high-risk, high-reward 

transformational research, state-of-the-art facilities and infrastructure, and a worldclass S&E workforce. With a firm commitment to these fundamental building blocks 

of our high-tech economy, we can solidify America’s role as the world leader in innovation. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I hope that this brief overview has 

given you a taste of just how very important the National Science Foundation and 

its activities are to the future prosperity of the United States. I look forward to 

working with you in months ahead, and I am happy to answer any questions you 

may have. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Mr. Chairman, I have to go to the floor, as 

well as Senator Rockefeller, but I just wanted to say that I have 

certainly enjoyed working with you, Dr. Bement. You have done a 

super job of navigating some very tough waters over there. 

Dr. BEMENT. Well, I look forward to future opportunities to see 

you, not only here in Washington, but also in Texas. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR [presiding]. Good answer. 

OK. Director Gallagher. 

22 

STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK D. GALLAGHER, PH.D., 

DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND 

TECHNOLOGY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Dr. GALLAGHER. Thank you very much. 

Members of the Committee, in the spirit of Senator Nelson’s 

guidance, let me briefly give you some highlights about how NIST 

has directly been touched by the America COMPETES Act. 

This seminal piece of legislation played several key roles for the 

agency. First, it prioritized programs at NIST and established the 

goal of doubling our funding. It also provided new authorization 

language, strengthening the Hollings Manufacturing Extension 

Partnership Program, which we consider one of COMPETES’ major 

successes. It also created a new program at NIST, the Technology 

Innovation Program. 

These impacts of the Act on NIST are directly reflected in the 

President’s 2011 budget, which moves toward doubling the laboratory budget, as called for under COMPETES, which Dr. Holdren 

has talked about. It has also increased funding levels for the Hollings MEP program and for the Technology Innovation Program. 

What this means for NIST is that the laboratory programs have 

been able to target high-priority areas consistent with the direction 

provided in COMPETES. This includes unprecedented support for 

manufacturing technology and innovation, in a number of areas, 

and emphasizes our work in Smart Grid, national healthcare, information system interoperability, cybersecurity, alternative energy 

sources, including advanced solar technologies. All of these hold 

significant promise to transform our society and revitalize the economy. These are challenges that are well suited to NIST, and the 

President’s budget request will support these critical roles. 

The request also increases support for the Hollings MEP program. These new funds will allow this important program to target 

job creation by providing manufacturers with the tools to reinvest, 

including process improvement and business growth initiatives. 

These collaborative efforts will lead to more sales, open new markets, and facilitate the adoption of technology to deliver new products and services for America’s manufacturers. 

The new program that was provided under America COMPETES 

for NIST was the Technology Innovation Program. This program 

catalyzes public-private activities to foster high-risk, high-payoff research programs focused on the development of advanced technologies that enable accelerated development of next-generation 

high-performance processes and materials. And this includes in 

such areas as nanomanufacturing. The request also includes funding for our construction of research facilities so that the NIST labs 

can remain at the forefront of their work. 

In my written testimony, I provide some information to extend 

my earlier remarks. But, I wanted to look forward, to make a few 

comments for the Committee as you consider reauthorization of the 

America COMPETES Act. 

While the efforts at the end of the innovation process—namely, 

scientific discovery and commercial activity—have well-defined participants, the middle of the process is characterized by a diverse 

mixture of participants. This means that our efforts must provide 

effective ways for Federal agencies to catalyze working partnerVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:54 Feb 28, 2011 Jkt 064707 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\64707.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
23 

ships between government, university, and industry researchers, 

but also between these groups and the financial, educational, techtransfer, trade experts, and other critical stakeholders in this process. The authorities provided in the COMPETES Act can facilitate 

these types of partnership activities. 

Another thought is that the Federal Government has an important role in innovation, but it is not the only player. States and 

local governments are essential government partners, and play a 

critical role in establishing the right technology ecosystem for innovation to flourish. Programs carried out under COMPETES should 

support these roles and create incentives for effective partnerships 

with state and local governments. 

And finally, the technology infrastructure plays an absolutely 

critical role in establishing the right conditions for the development 

of new technologies. Infrastructure technologies are powered by the 

standards that define how these systems work together. Our efforts 

in Smart Grid and health IT have the potential to revolutionize not 

only the ability to manage electricity distribution and medical information management, but also will provide the opportunity to develop new products and services that we cannot yet imagine. 

The budget request for the NIST reflects the Administration’s 

strong support for NIST and the recognition of the important role 

that we play in innovation and the impact that our services provide. 

The Act envisioned a robust NIST which focused on world-class 

laboratory science, manufacturing, and innovation. It challenged us 

to push the frontier of innovation. 

And I look forward to working with this committee, as you consider the reauthorization. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Gallagher follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK D. GALLAGHER, PH.D., DIRECTOR, NATIONAL

INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF

COMMERCE

Chairman Rockefeller, Ranking Member Hutchison, and members of the Committee thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the pending reauthorization of the America COMPETES Act and highlight the President’s 

Fiscal Year 2011 budget request for the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Mr. Chairman, the COMPETES Act, enacted with overwhelming bipartisan support, and signed into law 3 years ago, provided an unprecedented opportunity to further enhance and accelerate NIST’s contributions to innovation and 

competitiveness. It put forward a clear statement about the importance of Federal 

research and development in supporting U.S. economic prosperity, reflecting the 

strong support for advancing an ‘‘innovation agenda’’ through the Congress. 

The Act provided a focus for and outlined priorities in the physical sciences, defined roles for agencies within the Act as well as the need to interact and coordinate 

to leverage each agency’s particular strengths. The importance of the Act to NIST 

cannot be overstated and we commend the Chairman and the entire committee for 

the vision and leadership that led to its enactment. 

America COMPETES—Driving Innovation through Support for Science and 

Technology 

Numerous reports, such as the ‘‘Rising Above the Gathering Storm’’ in 2005, 

brought into sharp focus for lawmakers, Federal agencies, academia, and other key 

science and technology stakeholders, the challenges facing America’s science and 

technology policy community. In response, Congress enacted the America COMPETES Act that among other things reauthorized NIST. It had a significant impact 

on NIST by reaffirming the essential linkage between a strong foundation in physVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:54 Feb 28, 2011 Jkt 064707 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\64707.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
24 

ical sciences R&D and the Nation’s capacity to innovate and compete effectively in 

a global market. 

The COMPETES Act provided NIST with a focus and direction, highlighting the 

important role of measurements and standards in areas of critical national priority, 

as well as reemphasizing the important role that NIST plays in manufacturing and 

innovation by strengthening existing programs and authorities. My testimony today 

will highlight the importance of the COMPETES Act in each of these areas and 

touch upon how the foundation laid for NIST in the COMPETES Act provides the 

basis for this year’s request, as well as the starting point for our discussions with 

you, Mr. Chairman, on the reauthorization of the COMPETES Act. 

FY 2011 Budget Request—Continuing the Vision of COMPETES While 

Setting the Course for Tomorrow 

In today’s global economy, the ability of the United States to remain competitive 

relies upon our ability to develop and commercialize innovative technologies. The 

ability of American manufacturers and entrepreneurs to be technologically innovative both drives and is driven by our ability to observe and to measure. If one cannot 

measure something—one will not be able to control it. And if one cannot control it— 

one will not be able to reliably manufacture it. 

NIST’s unique role, or niche, is to advance measurements and standards to enable 

the next generation of innovation, leading to development and commercialization, 

thus providing our industries critical tools to remain competitive. Working closely 

with U.S. industry and academia, as well as providing interagency coordination, 

NIST plays a central role in advancing and maintaining this technology support system which helps enable innovations and future technologies that lead to the jobs 

of the future. 

The COMPETES Act prioritized resources for the NIST laboratory programs. It 

also provided new authorization language strengthening the Hollings Manufacturing 

Extension Partnership (MEP), one of the COMPETES Act’s major successes. The President’s FY 2011 budget request for NIST is $918.9 million, a 7.3 percent 

increase over the FY 2010 appropriations. The request is a statement that NIST’s 

mission is more important than ever, and highlights the important role that NIST 

plays under President Obama’s agenda for science and innovation. It also continues 

the commitment to double NIST’s laboratory budget as envisioned under the America COMPETES Act. 

The request for NIST’s laboratory programs is $584.5 million, an increase of al- most $70 million above FY 10 enacted levels. The budget request specifically targets 

high priority areas, consistent with the direction provided in COMPETES. The request provides unprecedented support for manufacturing and innovation in a number of areas including: 

• advanced manufacturing capabilities necessary to capitalize on advances in 

nanotechnology and to enable rapid prototyping and manufacture of multiple 

high technology components; 

• measurements to enable the efficient manufacture and regulation of biological 

drugs; and 

• tools to support the establishment of sustainable manufacturing practices. 

The request also emphasizes NIST’s work in high-priority infrastructure such an 

electric-power Smart Grid and national health care information systems that hold 

significant promise to transform our society and revitalize the U.S. economy. In 

order to succeed, the many interconnected components of these systems must be 

fully interoperable, in order to ensure that they can exchange information and work 

together seamlessly and securely. 

These are daunting challenges, but well suited to NIST. The request enables 

NIST to build upon its core competencies in this field, and helps to establish a 

framework of standards and related test protocols, and conformity assessment requirements that would facilitate seamless, end-toend interoperability for both of 

these technologies. As a non-regulatory agency, and a respected and trusted technical partner, NIST is uniquely positioned to bring together stakeholders from industry, government, academia and standards development organizations to establish 

consensus-based interoperability standards and conformity tests. The President’s 

budget request for NIST will support continued efforts in these critical areas as well 

as provide the infrastructure necessary to address other emerging interoperability 

challenges. 

One of the key initiatives in the FY 2011 request provides $10 million to address 

scalable cybersecurity for emerging technologies and threats. The initiative will enable NIST to collaborate with academic and government organizations to strengthen 

U.S. standards for managing ‘‘cryptographic keys,’’ secret numbers absolutely vital 

25 

1TIP funds no more than 50 percent of the total project direct costs, but not indirect costs 

(such as overhead), profits, or management fees. 

to protecting the confidentiality and integrity of sensitive information. It also will 

enable NIST to develop a framework and plan for multifactor authentication that 

uses interoperable biometric or cryptographic credentials (in addition to passwords) 

to increase assurance of a user’s claimed identity. 

The budget also proposes an increase of $9 million related to sustainable energy 

sources and nanomaterials development. Sustainability has become a top priority of 

the Nation. Rapid progress will depend on innovations from many quarters, both 

private and public. However, a prerequisite for U.S. success will be NIST assistance 

in establishing agreed upon measurement and data evaluation methods to enable 

the development and manufacture of new technologies. For example, new nanotechnology-based photovoltaic materials—so called third-generation solar technologies— 

may greatly enhance the absorption properties of photocells through multi-layer 

structures optimized to absorb light at specific wavelengths spanning the full spectrum of the sun’s output. However, the new materials lack the durability needed 

for commercial applications and developers need measurement tools to systematically optimize the electricity-generating properties of the devices. 

NIST’s sustainability initiative will have broad impact. It would help manufacturers improve efficiency, quality, and durability, while lowering the cost of third-generation photovoltaics; allow industry and U.S. regulatory agencies to accurately assess and manage the risks posed by key nanomaterials and products containing 

them throughout a full product lifecycle; and provide consumers with accurate information on EHS risks associated with specific products containing nanomaterials. 

The FY 2011 request for the MEP program builds upon the foundation COMPETES established. The proposed budget of $129.7 million represents an increase 

of $5 million over FY 2010 enacted levels to support the Administration’s policy initiatives for reinventing domestic manufacturing. This program will assist in creating jobs and responding to future challenges and opportunities in the manufacturing sector. Through locally based MEP centers it supports the adoption of technological innovations that spur economic growth and foster development of new products, expanded markets, and process improvements. It will also facilitate adoption 

of technological innovations by smaller U.S. manufacturers, especially clean technologies and processes that improve manufacturers’ competitive position. 

Over its 20-year history, the NIST MEP program has partnered with thousands 

of companies to provide them the tools with which to reinvest in themselves through 

process improvement and business growth initiatives. These collaborative efforts, 

working with partners at the state and local level, have led to more sales, opened 

up new markets, and facilitated the adoption of technology to deliver new products 

and services. The COMPETES Act further strengthened the MEP to continue to 

serve as a resource for manufacturing and innovation by expanding and leveraging 

resources to couple cost reduction strategies with profitable growth through new 

product development and market expansion. 

If enacted, in FY 2011 MEP will build upon efforts initiated in FY 2010 to implement and provide a number of new services to U.S. manufacturers in order to promote innovation and competitive practices, including: 

• The acceleration of technology adoption and the development of new products 

and processes 

• Green and sustainable manufacturing practices and products 

• Market diversification to support development of new markets and supply chain 

opportunities 

• An enabled manufacturing workforce that spans all levels of the organization 

Supporting Technological Innovation Through High-Risk, High-Reward 

Research 

As well as highlighting the importance of the NIST laboratory programs and 

strengthening MEP, the COMPETES Act also provided NIST with a new tool to 

help stimulate technological innovation and catalyze public-private activities in the 

form of the Technology Innovation Program (TIP). 

Launched in 2008, TIP was created to support innovative, high-risk, high-reward 

research in areas of critical national need where the government has a clear interest 

because of the magnitude of the problems and their importance to society. This 

merit-based competitive program funds cost-shared 1 R&D projects by individual 

small or medium-sized businesses as well as joint ventures, which may include instiVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:54 Feb 28, 2011 Jkt 064707 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\64707.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
26 

tutions of higher education, non-profit research institutes, government laboratories, 

and other organizations. 

In December 2009, TIP announced the results of its second competition awarding 

up to $71 million in funding through 20 new cost-sharing projects that will support 

innovative, high-risk research in new technologies that address critical national 

needs. Examples from the successful proposals include: developing unmanned hovering aircraft for bridge inspections, a high-speed sorting system for recycling aerospace metals, and nanomaterials for advanced batteries. The awards will be 

matched by other funding sources to achieve nearly $150 million in new research 

over the next two to 5 years. 

With its focus on broad participation through targeted partnerships with universities and industry, TIP has the potential to have significant impact in developing 

new, high-potential technologies that have commercial potential and address urgent 

national needs. 

The President’s FY 2011 budget request recognizes the potential impact of the 

Technology Innovation Program (TIP), especially in the area of advanced manufacturing, and includes an increase of $10 million for the program for a total of $79.9 

million. The request, if enacted, will expand the program to motivate and expedite 

high-risk, high-reward research focused on the development of advanced, disruptive 

technologies that enable accelerated development of next-generation, high-performance processes and materials in areas such as nanomanufacturing. 

The request also provides $124.8 million for the Construction of Research Facilities, including $66.1 million in funds targeting the renovation of NIST’s facilities in 

Gaithersburg and Boulder, and providing a sufficient amount of funds for on-going 

maintenance and repair of NIST’s infrastructure. 

Looking Forward to Reauthorization of COMPETES 

Looking forward, I believe that the foundation established by COMPETES is the 

right focus for our on-going discussions. The Act recognized that innovation is more 

than basic R&D and that we must optimize the entire process from discovery to production to harness the full economic benefits of the Nation’s science and technology 

capabilities. I believe that this broad approach is essential to success and that NIST 

can play a critical role in this effort. 

The process of successfully translating ideas born in our laboratories into successful products and services that are made and sold in the United States is characterized by the breadth of participation. From scientists and engineers working in our 

university, industry and national laboratories, through a broad spectrum of technology transfer mechanisms, with the lawyers and specialists working on intellectual property, to the bankers, venture capitalists and angel investors that provide 

funding, to our manufacturers, to our sales and marketing experts working in both 

domestic and international efforts. These broad efforts, while comprised of very different specialties, must all be effective to realize the economic potential of our technological creativity. 

As the Committee considers a reauthorization of the America COMPETES Act, I 

offer some general thoughts on areas for discussion: 

While efforts at the ‘‘ends’’ of the innovation process, namely scientific discovery 

and commercial activity, have well defined participants, the ‘‘middle’’ of the process 

is characterized by the diverse mixture of participants. This means that our efforts 

must provide effective ways for Federal agencies to form or catalyze working partnerships between government, university, and industry researchers; and also between these groups and the financial, educational, technology transfer, trade experts, and other critical stakeholders. Authorities provided in COMPETES can work 

to facilitate these types of partnership activities. The TIP program is a good example of this type of program. 

The Federal Government has an important role, but it is not the only player. 

States and local governments are essential government partners and play a critical 

role in establishing the right technology ‘‘ecosystem’’ for innovation to flourish. Programs carried out under COMPETES should support these roles and create incentives for effective partnerships with state and local governments. 

Technology infrastructure plays a critical role in creating the conditions for the 

development of new technologies. Infrastructure technologies, like the Internet, are 

disruptive developments since they enable entirely new classes of products and services. Infrastructure technologies are powered by the standards that define how these 

systems work together. Our efforts in Smart Grid and Health IT have the potential 

to revolutionize, not only our ability to manage electricity distribution and medical 

information management, but also the development of new products and services 

that we cannot yet imagine. This is a major opportunity if we can facilitate the 

27 

timely development of effective standards—those that define a system so it works, 

but do not stifle innovation and creativity. 

It is not enough to commercialize technology, we must strive to produce it. Manufacturing plays a critical role in the innovation process. Not only because it provides 

good, high quality jobs, but also because it has a close relationship with engineering 

and research. 

Summary 

For more than 100 years, NIST has maintained the national standards of measurement, a role that the U.S. Constitution assigns to the Federal Government to ensure fairness in the marketplace. Today, the NIST Laboratories address increasingly 

complex measurement challenges. The FY 2011 budget request for NIST reflects the 

Administration’s recognition of the important role that NIST plays in innovation, 

the impact that the services NIST provides can have on moving the Nation from 

recession to recovery, and the path this committee and the Congress had in mind 

when it enacted the COMPETES Act. 

The COMPETES Act set the tone and direction for NIST to be optimally positioned to meet the pressing critical challenges facing the American economy. I look 

forward to working with the Chairman to ensure that the overall structure of NIST 

is aligned with these priorities to ensure that NIST is optimally organized to meet 

the challenges ahead. 

The Act envisioned a robust NIST, focused on world class laboratory science, manufacturing, and technological innovation. It challenged NIST to continue to push the 

envelope of technological innovation, and incentivize industry and academia, in 

partnership with NIST, to do the same. It correctly recognized NIST’s unique capabilities and roles. Those themes are still the right ones to emphasize as we commence discussions on the reauthorization of the Act. 

I look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, and all the members of the 

Committee, to meet the goal of reauthorizing the COMPETES Act. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much, Mr. Director. 

Dr. Braun. 

STATEMENT OF DR. ROBERT D. BRAUN, 

CHIEF TECHNOLOGIST, NASA 

Dr. BRAUN. Madam Chairwoman and members of the Committee, 

thank you for the opportunity to appear today to discuss NASA’s 

research and development activities with a specific focus on the 

agency’s new initiatives in space technology. I look forward to 

working with you on enactment of the President’s direction for 

NASA in advanced technology, innovation, and continued efforts to 

engage students in the study of science, technology, engineering, 

and mathematics. 

The President’s Fiscal Year 2011 budget request for NASA is 

part of a larger national research and development effort in 

science, technology, and innovation that will lead to new products 

and services, new businesses and industries, and high-quality, sustainable jobs. 

For NASA, an enhanced technology and innovation focus responds to input of the Augustine Committee, recommendations 

from multiple National Research Council assessments, and past 

Congressional hearings on this subject. 

By focusing on innovation and technology, NASA will drive a sustainable, yet aggressive, future mission portfolio, enabling new approaches to its current missions and entirely new science and exploration endeavors. 

Central to NASA’s innovation initiative is the new Space Technology Program that will meet NASA’s needs for a broad range of 

technological solutions, as well as meeting the needs of other government agencies and the Nation’s space industry. 

28 

The broadly applicable technologies proven and matured within 

the Space Technology Program complement the more mission-focused activities in NASA’s mission directorates. Together, these 

programs ensure the development and infusion of innovative technologies to reduce cost, risk, and improve the performance of a 

wide variety of future space missions. 

The NASA Space Technology Program has three major elements: 

The early stage innovation program competitively sponsors a 

range of advanced space-systems concepts and initial technology 

development efforts across academia, industry, and the NASA centers. 

The Game-Changing Technology Program utilizes a DARPA-like 

approach to mature advanced technologies that have the potential 

to revolutionize future space missions. 

And the Crosscutting Capability Demonstrations Program proves 

technologies that are of benefit to multiple customers in the flightrelevant environment of space. 

These program elements are well aligned with America COMPETES; they’re innovative, high-risk, high-return research to improve America’s economic competitiveness. 

Many positive outcomes are likely from a broadly applicable Advanced Space Systems Concepts and Technology Development Program, including a more vital and productive space future than our 

country has today, a means to focus NASA’s intellectual capital on 

significant national challenges, a spark to the Nation’s technologybased economy, and an international symbol of our country’s scientific and technological leadership, and a motivation for many of 

the country’s young minds to enter into educational programs and 

careers in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. 

On a personal note, I sit before you today, a product of NASA’s 

STEM activities. And I can assure you that these NASA programs 

were instrumental to my own educational choices and, subsequently, to my career. 

I believe a NASA focused on innovation and technology 

unleashes a range of exciting potential futures for our Nation’s civil 

space program. I see humans going to the Moon, to the asteroids, 

and, eventually to Mars. I see robotic explorers traveling throughout the solar system and eventually into interstellar space. I see 

the identification of life on other planets and Earth-like worlds 

around other stars. I see an Earth observation system that can accurately forecast the emergence of major storms and natural disasters, as well as a NASA that supports the emerging commercial 

spaceflight industry and is a significant contributor to solving our 

Nation’s technological needs. 

Our Nation has made great progress throughout its history by innovating solutions to enormously difficult challenges it has encountered. The grand challenge to build an intercontinental railway or 

land a man on the Moon and return him safely to the Earth not 

only motivated a technological workforce, but it also created new 

technologies and innovations along the way. These achievements 

inspired generations to pursue challenging goals, created new industries, and ultimately improved our country and the world. 

Similar opportunities are in front of us now. The knowledge and 

technologies required to enable sustainable human exploration of 

29 

our solar system, to develop new space industries, and to increase 

the societal impact of our space program are within our grasp. 

Through a renewed focus on innovation and technology, I believe 

NASA can be an important catalyst for economic expansion in this 

Nation. 

Thank you again for this opportunity to testify. I’d be happy to 

respond to any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Braun follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. ROBERT D. BRAUN, CHIEF TECHNOLOGIST, NASA 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to 

appear today to discuss NASA research and development activities, with specific 

focus on the Agency’s new initiatives in the area of Space Technology for FY 2011. 

I look forward to working with you on enactment of the President’s pioneering direction in advanced technology and innovation. 

The President’s FY 2011 budget request for NASA is part of a larger national research and development effort in science, technology, and innovation that will lead 

to new products and services, new business and industries, and high-quality, sustainable jobs. For NASA, an enhanced technology and innovation focus responds to 

the input of the final report of the Review of the U.S. Human Space Flight Committee, recommendations from multiple National Research Council (NRC) assessments, and past Congressional hearings on this subject. As recognized by Congress 

and outlined in the America COMPETES Act (P.L. 110–69), our Nation’s economic 

competitiveness and high standard of living are based on decades of investment in 

innovation. A focus on innovation and technology is required both to enable new approaches to NASA’s current missions and allow the Agency to pursue entirely new 

missions. This investment also will allow NASA to participate in the development 

of technological solutions addressing broader national needs in energy, weather and 

climate, Earth science, health and wellness, and national security. NASA’s new direction is well aligned with America COMPETES—innovative, high-risk, high-return research to improve America’s economic competitiveness. As a research and development agency, NASA plays a vital role in America’s innovation engine and, as 

such, its future economic prosperity and security. The President’s FY 2011 budget 

request for NASA provides a renewed emphasis on research and development, which 

clearly recognizes the Agency as a long-standing and important catalyst for innovation and economic expansion in our Nation. Innovative research and technology, tied 

to exciting missions with national importance, is a strong motivator for students to 

pursue Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) disciplines, and 

a strong attraction for new hires. 

Given the importance of technology and innovation as a catalyst for encouraging 

STEM education, I wanted to say a few words about my background. For over 22 

years I have pursued an aerospace engineering career in government and academia, 

and for 16 of those years, I served on the technical staff of the NASA Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia, where I developed advanced space exploration 

concepts, managed multiple technology development efforts, and contributed to the 

design, development, test and operation of several robotic Mars flight systems. I arrived at Langley through one of the Agency’s educational programs. While at Langley, I earned both my Masters and PhD degrees through other NASA educational 

initiatives. So, I sit before you today, as a product of NASA STEM activities, and 

I can assure you these programs were instrumental to my education choices and 

subsequent career. For the past 6 years, I have served on the faculty of the Daniel 

Guggenheim School of Aerospace Engineering at the Georgia Institute of Technology, where I led an active research and educational program focused on the design of advanced flight systems and technologies for planetary exploration. In my 

current capacity as the NASA Chief Technologist, I am honored to address this committee on such an important topic. 

NASA Response to Recent External Reviews 

Several recent external reviews have addressed the issues of innovation and technology development at NASA, with a strikingly common set of themes. The Report 

of the Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee (Augustine Committee) 

strongly endorsed an increased focus on innovative technologies and approaches to 

achieving broadly defined NASA and national goals. This recommendation is similar 

to one made by the Aldridge commission in 2004. The recently released National 

Research Council (NRC) report, ‘‘America’s Future in Space,’’ specifically calls for 

30 

NASA to create a capability to develop game-changing approaches to National challenges. Finally, last year’s NRC report ‘‘Fostering Visions for the Future: A Review 

of the NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts,’’ for which I had the privilege of serving as a committee co-chair, recommended re-creating an early stage innovation engine like the NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts (NIAC). Each of these NRC reports emphasized the need for organizational independence from the mission-focused 

parts of the Agency in order to provide stability to the technology investment portfolio and a more risk-tolerant environment to foster innovation. They recommend a 

broad reach, across disciplines and organizations, to ensure the best ideas are 

brought forth and supported. All of these reports suggest that failure to invest in 

technology and innovation puts the Agency’s future viability at great risk. 

In recognition of the need to rebalance near-term mission and far-term technology 

and innovation investments, the Agency chartered an internal study team in 2009 

to investigate approaches to improve innovation within NASA. The study team 

found NASA’s investments in innovation and technology have been focused on the 

near term, especially in the space-related disciplines. They concluded the need for 

cutting edge technology and innovation is more important today than ever before 

as NASA develops missions of increasing complexity to understand the Earth, our 

solar system, and the universe. In addition, this team felt the Agency needed to do 

a better job in engaging our partners from across academia, industry and other Government agencies in its technology development efforts. 

Space Technology Program 

Through the new Space Technology Program, led by the Office of the Chief Technologist, NASA will increase its support for research in advanced space systems concepts and game-changing technologies, enabling new approaches to our current mission set and allowing the pursuit of entirely new missions. Using an array of management, funding, and partnership mechanisms, this program will engage the 

brightest minds in private industry, across the NASA Centers, and throughout academia. This new program builds upon the success of the NASA Innovative Partnerships Program and directly responds to input from multiple NRC reports, as well 

as the Augustine Committee. The Space Technology Program will meet NASA’s 

needs for new technologies to support future NASA missions in science and exploration, as well as the needs of other government agencies and the Nation’s space 

industry in a manner similar to the way NASA’s predecessor, the National Advisory 

Committee on Aeronautics (NACA), aided the early aeronautics industry. The broadly-applicable technologies proven and matured within the Space Technology Program complement the more mission-focused activities in NASA’s mission directorates. Together, these programs ensure the development and infusion of innovative technologies to reduce the cost and improve the performance of many important 

science and exploration missions. NASA will establish a deliberative panel of internal and external stakeholders—including stakeholders from industry and other government agencies—to review and advise on technology development priorities for 

the Space Technology Program through a transparent and balanced process. 

The Office of the Chief Technologist provides a visible Agency entry point for technology transfer and commercialization, interagency coordination and joint activities, 

intellectual property management and partnership opportunities, providing additional value to external innovators, including a wide range of small businesses and 

the commercial space industry. The Space Technology Program will use open competitions such as NASA Research Announcements and Announcements of Opportunity, targeted competitions including those for small business and universities, 

while engaging early career scientists and engineers. NASA will also continue to use 

challenges and prizes to stimulate innovative new approaches to technology development and will encourage partnerships with both established and emerging commercial space industries. Through the three major elements of this program—EarlyStage Innovation, Game-Changing Technology, and Crosscutting Capability Demonstrations—a broad suite of management, funding and partnership mechanisms 

are employed to stimulate innovation across NASA, industry and academia. 

Early-Stage Innovation 

The Early-Stage Innovation program element sponsors a range of advanced space 

system concepts, and initial technology development efforts across academia, industry and the NASA Centers. This program element includes: (a) the Space Technology Research Grant program (analogous to the Fundamental Aeronautics program within NASA’s Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate) that focuses on 

foundational research in advanced space systems and space technology; (b) re-establishment of a program akin to the NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts to engage 

innovators within and external to the Agency in accordance with the recommendaVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:54 Feb 28, 2011 Jkt 064707 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\64707.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
31 

tions of the NRC’s Fostering Visions of the Future report; (c) expansion of the Innovative Partnership Programs Seed Fund into a Center Innovations Fund to stimulate aerospace creativity and innovation at the NASA Centers; (d) the NASA Small 

Business Innovation Research/Small Business Technology Transfer Research (SBIR/ 

STTR) program to engage small businesses; and, (e) the Centennial Challenges 

Prize Program to address key technology needs with new sources of innovation outside the traditional aerospace community. Competitive selection is a major tenet of 

all the activities within this program element. 

While a broad range of activities are planned in this program element, a few examples include Nanotube Based Structural Materials, Flexible Power Arrays, Energy Storage Systems, Formation Flying Spacecraft Systems (Swarm Operations), 

Extreme Environment (Temperature/Radiation) Sensors and Mechanisms, Safe 

Despin/Detumble Approaches for Large Non-operational Spacecraft, Material/Structural Concepts to Mitigate Impact of Small Debris, and Precision Timing and Navigation Using Only Celestial Objects. Early-Stage Innovation efforts not only benefit 

NASA, but can spur innovation and job growth in the broader economy. For example, NASA’s Centennial Challenges led to the formation of new companies such as 

FLAGSuit LLC started by our first winner, Peter Homer of Maine. FLAGSuit is now 

developing commercial pressure suits and gloves. In addition, our most recent Centennial Challenges winner, LaserMotive of Seattle, Washington, recently announced 

plans for commercial expansion based on the laser power-beaming technologies developed to win the Power Beaming Challenge. 

An important aspect of the Space Technology Research Grants program is the 

competitive selection of U.S. citizen graduate student research that shows significant promise for future application to NASA missions. This effort will train the next 

generation of aerospace engineers and scientists by funding NASA-related graduate 

student research performed on campus during the academic year, as well as research performed at NASA Centers during the summer months. Each student in 

this project will be matched to a NASA researcher who will serve as the student’s 

NASA advisor. Through this experience, students will advance their STEM education, gain NASA experience, and learn the research and development processes. 

Game-Changing Technology 

The Game Changing Technology program element focuses on maturing advanced 

‘‘push’’ technologies that may lead to entirely new approaches for the Agency’s future space missions and solutions to significant national needs. Responsive to the 

NRC report, America’s Future in Space: Aligning the Civil Space Program with National Needs, this program element demonstrates the feasibility of early-stage ideas 

that have the potential to revolutionize future space missions. Fixed-duration 

awards are made to Principal Investigator-led teams comprised of government, academia, and industry partners. These awards are evaluated annually for progress 

against baseline milestones with the objective of maturing technologies through 

ground-based testing and laboratory experimentation. NASA will draw from 

DARPA’s experience to create and implement collaborative game-changing space 

technology initiatives. New technologies considered may include advanced lightweight structures and materials, advanced propulsion, power generation, and energy 

storage. With a focus on such potentially revolutionary technologies, success is not 

expected with each investment; however, on the whole, and over time, dramatic advances in space technology enabling entirely new NASA missions and potential solutions to a wide variety of our society’s major technological challenges are anticipated. 

Crosscutting Capability Demonstrations 

A Crosscutting Capability Demonstrations program element matures a small 

number of technologies that are of benefit to multiple customers to flight readiness 

status. Technical risk, technology maturity, mission risk, customer interest, and proposed cost are discriminators planned for use in the selection process. For infusion 

purposes, proposing teams are required to have a sponsor or sponsors willing to cost 

share a minimum of 25 percent of the planned development effort. With objectives 

analogous to the former New Millennium Program, NASA will pursue flight demonstrations not only as standalone missions, but also as missions of opportunity on 

planned missions as well as international and commercial space platforms. Performing these flight demonstrations will advance the technology readiness of the selected systems, provide tangible products from the NASA innovation and technology 

program, and capture significant public interest and awareness. While a broad set 

of activities are possible in this program element, examples include optical communications, aerocapture, supersonic and hypersonic inflatable aerodynamic decelerators, formation flying, and advanced in-space propulsion. The Commercial Reusable 

32 

Suborbital Research (CRuSR) Program (which provides suborbital flight opportunities for technology demonstrations, scientific research, and education); the Facilitated Access to the Space environment for Technology (FAST) program (which focuses on testing technologies on parabolic aircraft flights that can simulate microgravity and reduced gravity environments); and, the Edison Small Satellite Demonstration Missions project (which develops and operates small satellite missions in 

partnership with academia) are also included in this program element. 

Partnership Development and Strategic Integration 

Two key functions of the Space Technology Program are Partnership Development 

and Strategic Integration. Partnerships are an integral part of the NASA strategy 

for reinvigorating technology and innovation. Building upon the success of the Innovative Partnerships Program, NASA will pursue partnerships with U.S. industry, 

academia, other Government agencies, and international partners. Partnerships provide rich sources of innovation to help address NASA’s technical challenges, and 

also yield other applications of NASA-developed technologies that will benefit the 

public and contribute to economic growth. Each year, NASA documents 40–50 of the 

best recent examples of how the public benefits from NASA-derived technology in 

the annual Spinoff publication, with over 1,600 examples published and available 

online. One example from last year is the company Allocade, from Menlo Park, California. A NASA scientist founded Allocade then licensed Hubble Space Telescope 

scheduling technology and adapted it to help hospitals handle dynamic rescheduling 

issues with the On-Cue system. Efficiency is improving with this NASA technology. 

One hospital using the On-Cue system reported a 12 percent increase in procedure 

volume, a 35-percent reduction in staff overtime, and significant reductions in backlog and technician phone time. NASA technologies are also improving safety. The 

New York company Early Warning developed a new water analyzer—employing a 

carbon nanotube biosensor licensed from NASA—that can evaluate a water sample 

and alert operators to potentially dangerous biological contaminants in about 2 

hours, a drastic improvement over typical laboratory-based water sampling, which 

can take several days. 

NASA technology is also helping entrepreneurs pursue new space capabilities 

through technology licensing and partnerships, such as the inflatable structures 

technology licensed to Bigelow Aerospace and the advanced propulsion technology 

licensed to Ad Astra Rocket Company for their Variable Specific Impulse 

Magnetoplasma Rocket (VASIMR). The Strategic Integration function focuses on 

working with the Mission Directorates and the NASA centers to develop an Agency 

technology roadmap and measure the significance and performance of the Agency’s 

technology investments. Agency-level technology coordination, integration, and 

prioritization assessments are performed. Technology roadmapping and portfolio 

planning activities are driven by the Agency’s strategic goals, and coordinated with 

the technology development activities of our partners in industry, academia, and 

other government agencies. 

Models of Success 

NASA has a track record of success in the development of game-changing technologies and the transfer of its products and intellectual capital to industry. As an 

example, consider the Mars Pathfinder mission of the early 1990s. In addition to 

accomplishing its science and technology objectives, Mars Pathfinder established 

surface mobility and ground truth as important exploration principles, created a 

groundswell of interest and a foundational experience for a new generation of Mars 

scientists and engineers, re-engaged the public with Mars as a destination worthy 

of exploration, led to the creation of NASA’s Mars program and establishment of a 

Mars program budget line, and led to a wide spectrum of small missions to Mars, 

the asteroids, comets and other bodies in our solar system. As an early-career employee, I learned many lessons working on the Mars Pathfinder mission, and within 

a few years, I was applying these lessons learned to a wide range of more challenging flight systems. For the NASA robotic exploration program, Mars Pathfinder 

was clearly a game-changer. 

In a more recent example, consider NASA’s improvements to ablative thermal protection system (TPS) materials through an Advanced Capabilities development 

project sponsored by the NASA Exploration Systems Mission Directorate. Over 3 

years, a NASA-industry team raised the technological maturity of eight different 

TPS materials from five different commercial vendors, eventually selecting the system for the Orion heat shield. In addition to providing a heat shield material and 

design for Orion, this team identified a potentially catastrophic problem with the 

planned Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) heat shield and remedied the problem by 

providing a viable alternate heat shield material and design within stringent schedVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:54 Feb 28, 2011 Jkt 064707 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\64707.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
33 

ule constraints. From this effort, mature heat shield material and designs have been 

successfully transferred to the commercial space industry, including the material 

performance and modeling data for the SpaceX Dragon capsule heat shield with implications for a wide variety of customers. 

Government-industry cooperation in the inflatable structures arena has also paid 

significant dividends. In 1996, the TransHab program began the development of 

large-scale inflatable structures suitable for space habitation. This technology was 

later transferred to the commercial sector through patents and intergovernmental 

personnel acts, enabling companies including Bigelow Aerospace to engage in space 

commerce. Bigelow Aerospace is now poised to take on the final challenge of producing human-rated inflatable space modules, capable of providing the habitation 

needs for a multi-person crew in low Earth orbit. As a stepping-stone on that path, 

NASA is presently investigating a proposal to attach a Bigelow Aerospace-produced 

inflatable module to the International Space Station. 

NASA technology investments are of benefit to more than the Agency’s missions 

and the aerospace industry. In 2000, NASA and the University of Arizona developed 

the Mars Oxygen Generator, a two-pound experiment designed to generate oxygen 

for life support and fuel production on Mars. The device used solid oxide electrolysis 

cells to convert carbon dioxide and water into oxygen and fuel. When operated in 

reverse as a fuel cell, this device has been shown to produce clean, reliable electricity here on Earth. Development and commercialization of this technology as a 

NASA spin-off by Bloom Energy, which is now largely supported by the private sector, is moving beyond the early demonstration phase, with the goal of generating 

electricity at prices lower than traditional methods while producing half the amount 

of greenhouse gases. 

Beginning in FY 2011, the new NASA Space Technology Program aims to 

strengthen and broaden these successful innovation examples across a wide range 

of Agency and significant national needs. 

The Role of STEM Education 

NASA recognizes the important role that STEM education plays in developing the 

diverse scientific and technological workforce required to advance this Nation’s economic leadership. Experience has shown that exciting and compelling NASA missions truly inspire the next generation of explorers, innovators, and leaders. The 

NASA Office of Education administers nationwide education efforts that draw on 

content from across the Agency in pursuit of its three primary education goals: (1) 

Strengthening NASA’s and the Nation’s future workforce; (2) Attracting and retaining students in STEM disciplines; and (3) Engaging Americans in NASA’s mission. 

NASA leverages its unique program content, people, and facilities to spark interest, 

capture imaginations, and guide students toward careers in STEM fields while increasing their scientific and technological literacy to the benefit of the Nation. 

NASA accomplishes its STEM education goals through educational investments in 

Higher Education, Minority Research and Education, Elementary and Secondary 

Education, Education Technology and Products (e-Education), and Informal Education. 

NASA supports the objectives of the America COMPETES Act, as well as the Administration’s STEM education teaching and learning improvement efforts through 

its education portfolio. This summer, NASA will launch Summer of Innovation, a 

new initiative that is aligned with both Congressional and Administration STEM 

education priorities in mind. Summer of Innovation will be an intensive STEM 

teaching and learning program targeted at the middle school level that includes follow-on activities during the school year. NASA content and products will be incorporated into evidence-based summer learning programs across participating states 

with the goal of improving student academic performance and motivating students 

to pursue further education and successful careers. 

In addition to this new initiative, NASA’s Experimental Program to Stimulate Research (EPSCoR) and University Research Centers (URCs) are long-standing examples of the Agency’s commitment to the development of higher education academic 

research and development. EPSCoR targets states with modest research infrastructure with the goal of enabling them to become more competitive in attracting research funding. The URCs expand the Nation’s base for aerospace R&D and increase the number of underserved and underrepresented students studying STEM 

by increasing the competitive aerospace research capability among the Nation’s minority institutions. These awards foster relationships with industries, enabling future research and development opportunities that advance NASA scientific and engineering mission priorities. The educational achievement of America’s next generation is an issue that affects our Nation at all levels. 

34 

NASA will continue to partner with Federal, industry, state and local organizations and invest our resources toward a shared vision to secure those jobs critical 

to the 21st century workforce. This means not only inspiring the next generation 

and improving scientific literacy, but also providing educators with unique resources 

to aid in achieving national educational excellence in STEM. 

Conclusion 

Consistent with the objectives of the America COMPETES Act, many positive outcomes are likely from a long-term NASA advanced space systems concepts and technology development program, including a more vital and productive space future 

than our country has today, a means to focus NASA intellectual capital on significant national challenges and needs, a spark to renew the Nation’s technology-based 

economy, an international symbol of our country’s scientific and technological leadership, and a motivation for many of the country’s best young minds to enter into 

educational programs and careers in engineering and science. Major breakthroughs 

are needed to address our society’s energy, health, transportation, and environmental challenges. While NASA investments alone will not solve these major challenges, the Agency has proven to have a unique ability to attract and motivate 

many of the country’s best young minds into educational programs and careers in 

science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. A suite of game-changing space 

technology improvements are within our Nation’s grasp. With a stronger focus on 

technology development, the intellectual capital at the NASA Centers will be utilized to deliver solutions to some of our Nation’s greatest technological challenges. 

The NASA FY 2011 budget request provides the civil space exploration enterprise 

with multiple exciting potential futures. Previously NASA was marching toward a 

single human exploration future, where it was leveraging Apollo, Shuttle, and other 

relatively mature technologies to return to the Moon. In doing so, the budget and 

schedule pressures from this effort left little room for NASA to invest in the next 

generation of space technologies. The future now holds a host of possibilities and 

opportunities, with humans going to the Moon, to asteroids, and eventually to Mars. 

We envision robotic explorers traveling throughout the solar system and into interstellar space; the identification of life on other planets and Earth-like worlds around 

other stars; an Earth observation system that can accurately forecast the emergence 

of major storms and natural disasters; and, NASA supporting an emerging commercial spaceflight industry and contributing substantially to solving our Nation’s technological needs. Through the focus on innovation and technology represented in the 

President’s FY 2011 budget request, our Nation’s investment in NASA is much more 

likely to accomplish these potential futures. 

Our Nation has made great progress throughout its history by innovating solutions to the enormously difficult challenges it has encountered. The grand challenge 

to build an intercontinental railway, or to land a man on the Moon and return him 

safely to the Earth, not only utilized our best talent, but also created new technologies and innovations. These achievements also inspired generations to pursue 

challenging goals, created new industries, and ultimately improved our country and 

the world. Similar opportunities are in front of us now. 

Focusing NASA on these critical technological capabilities as we move forward is 

my challenge as NASA’s Chief Technologist. I am pleased to be leading NASA’s 

teams in this broadly applicable technological endeavor. In this manner, NASA can 

be an important catalyst for innovation and economic expansion in this Nation. 

Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to respond to any questions you or the other 

members of the Committee may have. 

Senator NELSON . Thank you. You’re an outstanding panel. 

Senator Klobuchar. 

STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Well, thank you very much. 

Thank you, to all of you. 

As Chair of the Competitiveness, Innovation, and Export Promotion Subcommittee, we’ve been very focused on these issues, and 

I’ve been actually excited, being out there in my state and some 

other states, about the emphasis right now on science and technology and making stuff again, and small and medium-sized busiVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:54 Feb 28, 2011 Jkt 064707 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\64707.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
35 

nesses, focusing on entrepreneurial endeavors, and really getting 

things out there. 

As you know, Minnesota is home to a lot of entrepreneurship. We 

brought the world everything from the pacemaker to the Post-it 

Note, and are continuing in those ways today, with our medical-device industry. We’re the Silicon Valley of energy-efficient windows, 

and we just have a lot of things going on. 

So, I’ve actually—when I come back from recess every time, I feel 

ready to go and focused on these innovation issues. And clearly, a 

key part of this is to make sure we’re encouraging, Mr. Holdren, 

more R&D, as well as the science and engineering. 

I also am the mother of a 14-year-old, so I’ve seen firsthand, the 

excitement of the kids at the Arlington High School’s science fair, 

where they’re standing there, holding their awards, 20 of them, 

just bright-eyed and excited with their experiments on comparing 

bacterial content in washed and unwashed lettuce—that was my 

daughter’s—and various other things. 

And one of the things that I keep trying to figure out is how you 

take that sense of competitiveness and excitement and interest in 

science, from that high school stage into our businesses and into 

our colleges and to continue on. Because I always think about the 

Beijing Olympics and those 3,000 synchronized drummers. And to 

me, the drumbeats are getting louder and louder and louder, and 

we are going to have to really refocus our economy on competing. 

I have some strong ideas on how that can be done, with encouraging innovation. 

So, my first set of questions was really just about that R&D 

issue. While we lead the world in research and development, other 

countries are rapidly catching up. Specifically, R&D expenditures 

have grown at a rate of 5 to 6 percent annually from 1996 to 2007. 

The R&D growth rate in Asian economies often exceeded 10 percent, and, in China’s case, was 20 percent. 

If the U.S. doesn’t make these critical investments in research 

and development in the coming years, what effect would our delay 

have on U.S. industries? I guess, Mr. Bement, if you want to answer that question. 

Dr. BEMENT. Yes, thank you, Senator. That’s a very good question. 

As a measure of how much the world is investing, not only in infrastructure, but education and research, the world share of research investment by the United States is going down as a fraction 

of the total. It used to be a healthy percentage, almost around 30, 

40 percent. Now, it’s 25 percent or less, and that’s a trend for the 

future, which means that we’re not going to be the front or the origin of many new concepts—they’re going to be generated in different parts of the world. 

If we’re not connected, if we’re not networked with top scientists 

abroad through international exchanges and collaborative activity, 

we could very well be blindsided in very important areas, and instead of being a leader, we would become a fast follower, at best. 

So, as I look to the future, I think we’re going to have to recognize that we’re not just on top of a small number of major economies, we’re part of a large world community that is catching up, 

and since the U.S. is the exemplar, we’re the team to beat. We’re 

36 

going to have to maintain our competitiveness. We’re going to have 

to maintain our investments, and we’re going to have to stay connected with the world, and we’re going to have to cooperate in 

order to compete. And that’s our work plan for the future. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. So, as we go through some of these ideas 

for this—I mean, clearly, more with the—with STEM and encouraging more young people to go into this area, that would be one 

thing. 

Dr. BEMENT. Well, I think almost every major economist in the 

world today recognizes that in an information economy—an information-driven economy, that the types of investment that really 

drive the economy are those three things. One is education, the 

other is investment in research and development, and the third is 

information and communication infrastructure. Those are the areas 

that we have to, as a Nation, decide that we’re going to invest in 

order to compete. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. So, to me, it’s the—that research, the R&D 

tax credits, and things like that, to try to get—— 

Dr. BEMENT. They’re all part of—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR.—those incentive out there. 

Dr. BEMENT.—they’re all part of the innovation work plan. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. You talked about worldwide. Would that 

mean—includes perhaps lifting some of these visa caps to allow, 

you know, students from other countries that study in our country 

to be able to stay in our country to do their research? 

Dr. BEMENT. Well, we gained dominance, I think, in many areas 

of research, primarily because we have positioned ourself as an 

open society. And top scientists from around the world are attracted to the United States because of our openness, the opportunity to excel and the opportunity to pursue new ideas in an open 

environment. 

If we lose that posture, and if we put barriers in the way, we’re 

going to have unintended consequences that we’re not going to like. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. And the fourth thing, which I’ve—sort of 

trying to get my arms around is, you look at what some of these 

other countries are doing, we have, clearly, some areas that we are 

excelling in—I bring up medical device, because it’s Minnesota—— 

Dr. BEMENT. Yes. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR.—or, you know, movies and entertainment, 

or, you know, some of the energy work we’ve done, although we’ve 

been leapfrogged by a lot of countries, because we haven’t put these 

incentives in place. And I think—the energy area is what makes 

me think, Should we be targeting certain areas, where we want to 

be the world leaders, so we focus on those areas, instead of just 

across the board, so it helps us to grow jobs in those areas, because 

those are our key exports? 

Dr. BEMENT. Yes, obviously we need to select those areas where, 

as a Nation, we must excel in if we’re going to maintain our economy and if we’re going to maintain our workforce. Certainly, information and community—I’m sorry—information and communications technologies are paramount. 

But, there are a lot of intangible areas, that are also job creators 

in this economy, that we also have to pay attention to—how to 

manage business systems, how to manage world logistics operVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:54 Feb 28, 2011 Jkt 064707 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\64707.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
37 

ations, how to do a better job in managing our financial institutions. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Really? OK. 

Dr. BEMENT. You know, I’ve often worried about a system that’s 

so far from equilibrium being managed by equilibrium theory. I 

think we have to do a better job of anticipating disruptive events 

in the financial markets. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. OK. 

Dr. BEMENT. So, that’s a good economic and mathematical—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. OK. 

Dr. BEMENT.—problem. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Just one last question, here. 

Mr. Holdren, do you want to comment on any of these policy 

ideas I’ve thrown out, here? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Yes, I would like to add a couple of comments. 

One, on your point about the visas: OSTP agrees, and the President agrees, this is extremely important. We’ve actually been working with Homeland Security and state and the other relevant agencies—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. You know what happens. 

Dr. HOLDREN.—to lower barriers. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. We educate these people, they want to stay 

in our country. Then they go somewhere else, and then maybe, if 

we’re lucky, we’ll contract with them, but we can’t get them as employee—— 

Dr. HOLDREN. We can’t get them back, and we are really trying—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. All right. 

Dr. HOLDREN.—to work that problem. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. OK. 

Dr. HOLDREN. It’s extremely important. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. All right. 

Dr. HOLDREN. And the second thing—I would second something 

that Dr. Bement said about the importance of maintaining a very 

substantial degree of cooperation and collaboration with scientists 

and technologists in other countries, both for the efficiencies that 

result from cooperating on many of these big challenges, but also, 

as he pointed out, to stay connected. And this is—has been another 

priority in OSTP; we’ve been reenergizing our joint committees on 

cooperation in science and technology with Russia, India, Europe, 

China, Japan, Brazil. All of those have been stood up and reactivated since we came into office. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. The last thing I’d add, too, is just the work 

that’s being done now. Foreign Commercial Service’s exports for a 

small and medium-size business, to make it easier for them to find 

these markets, get their goods out there. We’ve just had some 

amazing success stories from Karlstad, Minnesota, the moose capital of our state, not of Alaska—and various other small businesses 

that have literally, you know, 10 times more employees because 

they found some markets where they could sell their goods. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Again, I can only agree. 

This morning, I was in a meeting of what we call ‘‘The Green 

Cabinet,’’ the members of the Obama Cabinet who are preoccupied 

with issues of green jobs, of addressing energy and climate chalVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:54 Feb 28, 2011 Jkt 064707 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\64707.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
38 

lenges, and so on. We had Karen Mills and the Deputy Secretary 

of Commerce, Dennis Hightower, and Secretary of Energy, Steve 

Chu, and I, all interacting on this question of how to advance the 

ball, with respect to exports. And, of course, Karen Mills, the Administrator of the Small Business Administration, and Deputy Secretary Hightower had some great stories to tell bout small and medium-size businesses—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Right. 

Dr. HOLDREN.—that had been very successful in rapidly ramping 

up projects that were exportable and were being exported. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Yes. Very good. 

I just wish we’d call it the ‘‘innovation agenda.’’ I think that 

would be—capture people more than colors and things. I don’t 

know. It’s just what I’ve seen in my state. And we need to sort of 

inspire people and bring them together on a common theme, which 

I believe is bringing back innovation in this country. 

Thank you. 

Senator NELSON. Senator Begich. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARK BEGICH, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you all being here. I have a few questions. 

Mr. Holdren, let me first start with you, if I can, and maybe kind 

of move around a little bit. 

Within the reauthorization, or the discussion we’re having on the 

COMPETES Act, there’s a portion there about NOAA, and it’s, 

kind of, responsibility, and I’m just going to read one little section 

of it under Title IV, ‘‘Conduct, develop, support, promote, and coordinate formal and informal education activities to enhance public 

awareness and understanding of the oceans, coastal, great lakes, 

and atmospheric science,’’ so forth. 

Give me your thoughts of how NOAA fits into this equation. And 

I have two parts to this: 

The first is, Do you believe that they are, and should be, the 

principal focal point, when it comes to education, in regards—to 

public education—in regards to science and—science of climate 

change? That’s the first question. 

And then, the second question is, Would you have any objection 

if we expanded, in the reauthorization, the funding authorization 

for NOAA, within this bill, to do some of that work? 

So, it’s a two-part question. 

Dr. HOLDREN. First of all, Senator Begich, I would want to agree 

very energetically with the proposition that NOAA is extremely important in this domain. As you know, my confirmation hearing before this committee was at the same time as the confirmation hearing for Dr. Jane Lubchenco—— 

Senator BEGICH. Yes. 

Dr. HOLDREN.—the Administrator of NOAA. She and I have been 

friends for 30 years. I had dinner with her Monday night. We talk 

all the time about these issues and what she’s been doing at 

NOAA, and I think what she’s been doing is terrific. They have 

launched a reorganization at NOAA that brings together, in one office, a wide variety of their activities related to climate, including 

39 

climate education. They got a new website that’s getting the word 

out there. 

At the same time, I don’t think any single agency should be the 

exclusive locus of activity related to climate science or climate 

science education. There are important components of that going on 

in the National Science Foundation, in NASA, in the DOE, and one 

needs to remember that climate change, climate science, climate 

technology are all entangled around issues not only of understanding what is happening in the atmosphere and the oceans, but 

understanding what’s happening in ecosystems, understanding 

what impacts are across the range of issues, from water availability 

to public health. It is a characteristic of a problem this complicated 

that capacities related to it are going to be in many different agencies. 

Senator BEGICH. OK. The second—— 

Dr. HOLDREN. And so, I think we all need to work together on 

that. 

Senator BEGICH.—the second part, expanding authorizing capacity within this legislation, for them to have funding? 

Dr. HOLDREN. I guess I wouldn’t want to comment, at this point, 

on a specific proposition of an increase. I think the President’s 

budget for Fiscal Year 2011 proposes very substantial increases in 

climate science, and a good part of that is for NOAA. I’d want to 

have a conversation with you offline about what—— 

Senator BEGICH. OK. We’ll do that. 

Dr. HOLDREN.—actual things you had in mind. 

Senator BEGICH. OK. We’ll have that conversation. 

I’m watching my clock, here, so. And also because I have to be 

on satellite time at 4 o’clock, and you know how the windows open 

and close. 

So, Dr. Braun, you’re next on my list, so you understand that 

moment, there. But, let me ask you a couple quick things. 

You mentioned some of the relationships in education, to a certain extent, in your testimony. But, the one I didn’t hear—maybe 

I missed it—was the utilization of Challenge Learning Centers, 

which are around the country. And, you know, when I talk to people who run these—we have one in Alaska—when I talk to folks 

who run these, they’re always struggling. And there seems to be a 

disconnect between some of their work and educating young people—as well as adults, but a lot of young people they focus on— 

and how NASA can participate in an ongoing relationship with the 

Challenge Learning Centers. Can you give me any thought on that? 

And if you don’t have an answer, for the record, at some point, 

would that be—— 

Dr. BRAUN. Yes, well. Let me give you a little bit of thought on 

that, and I’ll also follow up for you on the record. 

Senator BEGICH. OK. That’d be great. 

Dr. BRAUN. First of all, education is very important to NASA. 

Senator BEGICH. Absolutely. 

Dr. BRAUN. And it’s been proven, time and time again, that 

NASA has a unique ability to inspire youth all around our country 

to go into careers in science, engineering, technology, and mathematics; perhaps have a unique role in that area. Pursuant to the 

NASA Authorization Act of 2008, NASA has extended that reach 

40 

into rural communities, and we’re doing so in a number of ways, 

including using our NASA Explorer School system. The NASA Explorer Schools target underrepresented populations throughout our 

country, in rural and urban areas, using a digital learning network 

to, you know, tie in through videoconference—— 

Senator BEGICH. Yes. 

Dr. BRAUN.—NASA researchers with these schools. And we can 

do the same—we can use that same type of technology with the 

Challenger Learning Centers. Also, in the State of Alaska, I should 

point out, that we have a NASA Educator and Resource system, 

and that system is affiliated with the Alaska Pacific University—— 

Senator BEGICH. Correct. 

Dr. BRAUN.—and it’s full of materials that are disseminated to 

educators all throughout the State of Alaska—science, mathematics 

educators. And they use those resources, then, with their students, 

to pull them and to inspire them into these educational programs 

and careers. 

Senator BEGICH. Very good. 

Let me end with one question, because my time is up. 

But, I appreciate that. I’d be interested if you’d kind of show me 

the—at some point, just for the record, or for me, personally, just 

kind of how you work directly, other than just what you laid out, 

with Challenger Learning Centers around the country. 

Dr. BRAUN. I’ll follow up—— 

Senator BEGICH. Now, here’s—— 

Dr. BRAUN.—the record with that. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

NASA has a rich relationship with the nation-wide network of Challenger Centers. These interactions include competitively awarded grants and cooperative agreements, support for state-based initiatives, participation in special events, and providing speakers and educators for regular Challenger Center education programs. 

NASA and the national leadership of the Challenger Centers have also formed a 

Space Act Agreement in which the organizations collaborate in fun and exciting activities to engage students in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics 

(STEM). Finally, the Science, Space, and Technology Education Trust Fund, established by Congress in 1994 via Public Law 103–327, enables NASA to provide the 

network with $250K each quarter. 

Numerous Challenger Centers are currently developing new exhibits, teacher professional development and student engagement programs through awards made by 

the NASA Office of Education (OE). Currently, awards exist at the following institutions: 

Challenger Learning Center of Colorado (Colorado Springs, CO) 

Challenger Reach 2 U: This four-year award through the OE Competitive Program for Science Museums and Planetariums (CP4SMP), will reach more than 

2,500 fourth-grade students each year from underserved communities throughout southwest Colorado and northwestern New Mexico, including primarily 

rural, lower socio-economic status, Hispanic and Native American districts. The 

project includes assessment, teacher training, industry speakers, and a live 

event featuring ‘‘Moon, Mars and Beyond’’ to encourage students to pursue career fields in STEM subject areas. Two traveling mission technology kits will 

be made available for districts that do not meet the necessary technology requirements. 

Challenger Learning Center of the San Joaquin Valley (Atwater, CA) 

STARS: Strengthening Teaching, Awareness and Resources in Science: The primary goal of this five-year STARS project, awarded through the CP4SMP, is to 

build astronomy resources and partnerships in order to maximize the impact of 

informal education in creating a STEM education pipeline. 

Challenger Learning Center of Alaska (Kenai, AK) 

41 

Climate Change: NASA’s Eyes on the Arctic: In partnership with the University 

of Alaska Museum of the North, the Imaginarium Discovery Center at the Anchorage Museum, and scientists at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, this 

project will develop permanent and traveling exhibits and programs that feature climate change data collected by NASA Earth-orbiting satellites. The Magic 

Planet digital video globe will be used for program delivery. Many rural communities throughout Alaska will be reached directly. This is a three-year CP4SMP 

award. 

Challenger Learning Center at Heartland Community College (Normal, IL) and 

Challenger Learning Center for Science and Technology (Woodstock, IL) 

Mission to Mars: An Urban/Rural Collaborative to Inspire NASA’s Next Generation: A new strategic alliance with educators and middle school students in 

grades 6–8 in Chicago Public Schools, the Museum of Science and Industry, two 

Challenger Learning Centers, schools serving students in rural and suburban 

areas of Illinois, and two NASA Centers will jointly develop a live distance 

learning program called Mission to Mars. Complementary pre- and post-program materials for use in classrooms will be developed by the partnership. Professional development workshops for teachers and preparatory sessions for 

NASA scientists and engineers will enhance the efficacy of program delivery. 

Challenger Learning Center for Space Science Education (Alexandria, VA—national lead) 

Exploring Climate Change through Challenger Learning Centers: With funding 

through the OE Global Climate Change Education project, the Center will develop a set of interactive learning activities that help middle school students 

learn about and explore climate change from an orbital perspective. State-of-art 

image and visualization techniques will be combined with NASA data on climate change. Activities will be shared with all 46 Challenger Learning Centers 

where each year, more than 300,000 students and teachers participate in simulated space missions. 

Challenger Learning Center for Space Science Education (Alexandria, VA—national lead) 

Challenger Center Missions for High School: Using the power of immersive 

learning to engage high school students in Earth and space exploration: In partnership with TERC, NASA’s Teaching from Space Office, the Lunar Science Institute, Lunar Quest Program, My NASA Data, and Earth Observatory, the 

Center will develop the next generation of the ‘‘Encounter Earth’’ and ‘‘Return 

to the Moon’’ mission simulations and associated online activities. A new function-rich software engine will extend the reach of these immersive learning experiences from a traditional middle school audience to high school students and 

teachers. All students will be able to fly enhanced simulated space missions to 

study the Earth or the Moon, even from remote locations, and teachers will 

have new, tailored classroom opportunities to engage them in Earth and lunar 

science using NASA resources. This project is funded through the OE K–12 

Competitive Grants Program. 

NASA recently awarded a grant to the Challenger Center for Space Science Education (Alexandria, VA—national lead for the Challenger Center Foundation) to 

validate the educational goals and content of NASA’s new massive multi-player online game, Astronaut School, now in development. The Center will partner on this 

grant with a wide range of groups including the Astronaut: Moon, Mars and Beyond 

consortium of game developers, Dr. Larry Lowe at Benedict College, Wisdom Tools 

and NASA’s Learning Technologies Program Office, as well a number of diverse 

Challenger Learning Centers, teachers and students. 

NASA Field Centers and Mission Directorates also pursue unique relationships 

with Challenger Learning Centers. Marshall Space Flight Center has a long history 

of engagement with the McWane Science Center (Birmingham, AL), home of the 

Challenger Center of Alabama. Through the NASA-funded ‘‘Basic Science Literacy 

Project,’’ the Center annually provides 200 free Challenger Missions or space and 

technology programs to approximately 7,200 students in kindergarten through 

eighth grade. Stennis Space Center works closely with the Challenger Learning 

Center at Wheeling Jesuit University (Wheeling, WV) to conduct student led mission simulations derived from Stennis expertise in climatology and earth science research. Recent special events offered through this collaboration include support of 

the international Oceans 2009 Conference. A similar arrangement exists between 

the Glenn Research Center and the Challenger Learning Center of Northwest Indiana, a collaboration designed to better engage students in NASA’s exploration misVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:54 Feb 28, 2011 Jkt 064707 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\64707.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
42 

sion. The Science Mission Directorate has worked collaboratively with the network 

to develop and present new content related to the Kepler mission’s search for other 

habitable planets, and the NASA Stardust exploration of comets. All Centers and 

Mission Directorates support the Centers, these being just a few representative examples. 

Challenger Learning Centers participate in NASA networks for acquiring data, information on breaking news, special events, and speaker opportunities. The Museum Alliance is a community of practice for providers of informal education. 

Through this collaborative environment, education professionals are provided with 

unique access to NASA’s missions, scientific findings, artifact loan programs (e.g., 

space shuttle tires), and scientists and engineers. At this time, 16 Challenger Centers, or science centers/museums with embedded Centers, are active members of the 

Museum Alliance network. Two Centers also participate in the NASA Space Place, 

a community specifically geared to small, local informal education institutions. 

A Space Act Agreement between NASA and the Challenger Learning Centers fosters numerous special events and activities. In 2008, the Challenger Learning Center network conducted a ‘‘Name the Habitat’’ contest for a proposed inflatable lunar 

greenhouse. Centers participate in Space Shuttle and International Space Station 

downlinks, including hosting a high-profile event during the flight of STS–118, a 

mission that launched Educator Astronaut Barbara Morgan into space. The Centers 

also conducted NASA Engineering Design Challenge events that tied STEM study 

to that historic mission. Another collaboration between NASA and the Challenger 

Learning Centers also garnered international attention. In 2008, a downlink, several ham-radio transmissions, and on-orbit educational activities were led by Richard Garriott and targeted to the Centers. These events represent only a few noteworthy cooperative events. NASA routinely provides workshops and training events 

for Center staff and hosts several sessions at the annual Challenger Learning Center National Conference. 

NASA continues to invest in the Challenger Learning Center network through 

quarterly distributions from the Science, Space, and Technology Education Trust 

Fund. As stipulated in Public Law 103–327, in 1994, $15M was allocated by Congress to establish the trust with the intention of providing the network with four 

annual distributions of $250K. NASA has met the $250K payout obligations from 

the trust, the most recent occurring in FY 2010, Quarter 2. 

Senator BEGICH. That’d be great. 

And this last question—this is kind of a ‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no’’ to each one 

of you, so this is very quick, hopefully. And that is, as you know, 

we’re in the process of rewriting No Child Left Behind, which is a 

very large educational piece. 

Are you, as an agency that you represent, engaged in that process at any level? 

Dr. BEMENT. Yes, definitely. 

Senator BEGICH. OK. 

Let’s just walk through the list. 

Dr. GALLAGHER. No. 

Senator BEGICH. OK. 

Dr. BRAUN. I’m going to have to get back to you on that. 

Senator BEGICH. OK. 

Dr. BRAUN. Sorry. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

NASA is an active participant in the National Science and Technology Council 

(NSTC) education subcommittee. Working with other Federal agencies with a role 

in STEM education, such as the National Science Foundation and Department of 

Defense, NASA leadership has participated in discussions related to the revision 

and reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) also 

known as ‘‘No Child Left Behind.’’ As with all legislation proposed by the Administration, NASA and the members of the NSTC subcommittee had the opportunity to 

review proposed ESEA language and participate in discussions with the Department 

of Education. The March 2010 meeting of the NSTC subcommittee focused heavily 

on the role and potential contributions of Federal STEM agencies in improving K– 

12 teaching and learning. 

43 

NASA continues to offer elementary and secondary education opportunities and 

experiences to teachers and students. Materials, instructional resources, and educational activities meet national education standards for science, technology, and 

mathematics. Projects utilize evidence-based approaches to achieving performance 

targets and expected impacts. Efforts are regularly evaluated. 

NASA is ensuring that the education models and infrastructures for all of its educational investments are consistent with the goals, strategies, and intended outcomes of recent Executive Orders and Department of Education policy directives, including Race to the Top, Educate to Innovate, and Investing in Innovation. 

Dr. HOLDREN. I think only on the STEM education—— 

Senator BEGICH. OK. 

Dr. HOLDREN.—ramifications. 

Senator BEGICH. My only comment would be the thing that I’ve 

learned about the Federal Government is, it is so big, we do many 

of these authorizing bills, and none of us connect with each other. 

So, I would encourage each one of—you knew where I was going. 

And so, that’s a big piece of legislation—talks about lots of resources authorizing—and it’s about educating our young people for 

the future. I am, personally, no big fan of ‘‘No Child Left Behind,’’ 

because it has hurt rural states and rural communities, but in its 

rewrite, I think it’s important that all of us make that cross-connection. I know, Mr. Holdren, you’ve been doing a good job of crossconnecting on certain issues. This is one that, as we look at this 

reauthorization, that’s a perfect combination of the two. That’s my 

two bits. 

Dr. BEMENT. Just a quick response. 

Senator BEGICH. Great. 

Dr. BEMENT. NSF and NASA have long had a joint MOU in sharing investments in education and learning, and also sharing best 

practices. So, we do have a cooperative arrangement with NASA. 

We have cooperative arrangements with other Federal agencies, as 

well. 

Senator BEGICH. Well, I just think, in the rewrite of this law, 

that, as we rewrite that law and this one, my bet is, there’s great 

synergy between these two. And if we can figure out how to do that 

so we enhance our capacity to educate our future young people, this 

is a gain all the way around. So, I’d just encourage you. 

Thank you all very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator NELSON. Senator Warner. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARK WARNER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM VIRGINIA 

Senator WARNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding this hearing. 

And, gentlemen, thank you all for your testimony. 

And let me say at the outset, you know, not only do I support 

the reauthorization of the America COMPETES Act, but, both in 

this job and my old job as Governor, whether it’s STEM education, 

R&D, tax credits, space that the Chairman—and NASA activities 

that the Chairman cares so deeply about, as I do—all for it all. 

But, frankly I think our innovation and competitiveness strategy 

has been nonexistent for more than a decade-plus. And I think 

from garnering political support from connecting with the American people, from, you know, same old, same old, which we all talk 

44 

about being supportive of and just does not mean dismissive of all 

of—particularly the STEM education, which is so important. But, 

I believe this country needs a true national competitiveness strategy. I would make the case that over the last decade-plus that we 

haven’t had one. Actually, I think the last time there was any formal effort was back in the Carter administration. You know, most 

major industrial countries—UK, South Korea, Ireland, Denmark, 

the Dutch, all have national competitiveness strategies. I would 

make the case—and this is more of a statement, I guess, than a 

question, that, you know, the last 10 or 12 years, what have you— 

and it goes within Democrats and Republicans alike—you know, 

the only way America has been able to perhaps compete, in terms 

of innovation, is creating, you know, sophisticated financial products that ended up bringing the world to the brink of a financial 

meltdown. 

You know, why would anybody go and be the next great scientist, 

when you can—I spend a lot of time around the financial market— 

if it—markets—go a different direction and, you know, outside of 

financial markets and the real estate industry, there has been very 

little innovation. I think we’ve ranked, since 2000, 40th in the Nation—40th in the world, in terms of innovation growth. 

So—and I know Senator Klobuchar was raising things, in terms 

of, you know, some of the activities, in terms of how we do a better 

job of—with exports and taking American business abroad, and I 

think that’s important. And I know this is beyond the bailiwick of 

some of you all, but I’d love to start a conversation with you and 

the panel and my colleagues. 

But, you know, I think we need—if we’re going to really have a 

competitiveness strategy, it may go to something as basic as the 

kind of enormous increasing preference we have, in our financial 

system, of debt over equity. I used to be in the venture capital business. Why in a—why go be a venture capitalist, and take a—or a 

young entrepreneur, and take a risk that way, when you can go 

with a—what is supposedly a more guaranteed return on debt instruments, as opposed to the private equity needs that we have, to 

really spur innovation in the private sector? 

Clearly, our tax code that made America competitive in the 70s 

and 80s, you know, we’re getting our lunch eaten on a tax code 

basis, in terms of R&D tax credits—I believe at 14 percent, we’re 

way below the average in OECD, way down the list—the fact that 

we can’t make it permanent—we have a—both the lack of predictability, as well as a percentage that makes us competitive on a 

global economy. 

You know, I think if we’re going to really sell innovation as much 

as we kind of all argue for STEM, what have you—unless we have 

a strategy that says, How are we going to include rural America 

and urban America, so that we don’t continue to simply have pockets of prosperity, mostly fostered around our top research universities, is really something that is challenging to me. 

And, as states—perhaps I’m getting biased, as a former Governor—as states fundamentally deal with a budget crisis and shortfalls that may not repair itself any time in the foreseeable future, 

the whole concept of our traditional 4-year higher education, I 

think, needs to be reexamined. I mean, we are, you know—particuVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:54 Feb 28, 2011 Jkt 064707 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\64707.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
45 

larly for the middle class—I commend top-tier universities who say 

to a family of four, ‘‘If you’re making $60,000 a year and below, 

you’re fine.’’ For families of—mine have been well—done well 

enough that were fine, but everybody in that vast middle class is 

rapidly being priced out of higher education. And I don’t think 

there’s nearly radical enough thinking about a whole restructuring 

of higher education—at least from a discussion standpoint of perhaps even starting folks in their first year or two, even if you’re 

Harvard- or Stanford-bound, at a community college. 

But I guess my comment Mr. Chairman, is that in the context 

of this America COMPETES Act, I hope that we can add a provision that would also look at creating a broad-based national competitiveness strategy that goes beyond the parameters of the America Competes act—that is would go beyond, kind of, our traditional 

focus, simply on R&D and STEM and education, and really take on 

this issue in a much broader, more comprehensive way, and this 

is a request beyond the purviews of your respective administrative—administration jobs, but I sure as heck would love to have 

your thinking on this topic. 

And I know I’ve now, basically, used up all my time and—as typical as Senators sometimes do. When I was a Governor, I just 

asked questions. 

But if you—anybody’s got a quick comment, recognizing I don’t 

want to impart on the Chairman’s time. 

Dr. HOLDREN. I would love to make a very quick reaction, which 

is—first of all, I agree with you, Senator Warner, that we need 

more creative thinking in this domain, but I do think that the Administration, in rolling out, as the President did last year, a Strategy for American Innovation, put on the table a lot of the kinds of 

ingredients we need. 

You may remember that that strategy had three different components. The foundation was investing in the building-blocks of innovation, which includes STEM education, broadband, the various 

kinds of information and communications and transportation and 

energy infrastructures we need, space, and more. 

But, the middle level was a set of elements under the heading 

of ‘‘Promoting Competitive Markets in Ways that Spur Productive 

Entrepreneurship.’’ And I think there were a variety of good ideas 

in there that the Administration is trying to advance, and that 

we’d love to see reflected, as well, in the reauthorization of the 

COMPETES Act. 

And then the top level of this, sort of, pyramid—the way the 

President announced this strategy—was catalyzing breakthroughs 

to advance various national priorities. And again, the number of 

specific elements in there that we would love to work with you on 

getting into—— 

Senator WARNER. Correct me, if I’m wrong, but wasn’t that when 

the President outlined that at a small town in Upstate New York? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Yes, it was. 

Senator WARNER. And that was the day that, I think, there were 

certain other things going on in New York, and—— 

Dr. HOLDREN. It didn’t get as much attention as it—— 

Senator WARNER. And, you know—— 

Dr. HOLDREN.—might have. 

46 

Senator WARNER. I think it got third paragraph in a—otherwise 

political story. And, respectfully, I would just say, I have not seen 

anything else in a major emphasis-way from the Administration 

since that day of the rollout in New York. 

Dr. HOLDREN. I will send you a few things. But I’d love to talk 

with you about this offline, because we’re thinking about a lot, and 

I think we’re moving ahead on a number of these fronts, but we’d 

sure like your help. 

Senator WARNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator NELSON. Gentlemen, thank you for your service. Dr. Holdren, the budget makes a $3.7 billion commitment to the 

STEM education, and that’s across the Federal Government. It includes a billion for improving math and science education for K– 

12, and that is to increase student expectations, supporting resources and professional development for STEM teachers, and 

then, to evaluate the STEM education outcome measures. 

Tell us, briefly, How can we make these investments make sure 

that they are preparing our children for the high-tech careers in 

the fields such as information technology, engineering, healthcare? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, of course, the—sorry—the billion dollars you 

referred to is for science and math education in K-through-12, the 

$3.7 billion, the total for all of our efforts together. And I think one 

of the things we have to look at—and Senator Klobuchar also referred to this, in talking about her daughter and her daughter’s enthusiasm for science, and how you maintain that through college 

and into careers that are productive and contribute to the economy 

and contribute to discovery. And we are trying to think about it in 

that way in the Administration; that is, we’re trying to look at all 

of the levels, and what we do in college, to make sure we sustain 

the excitement and the interest that I hope we will increasingly 

generate with these investments in the K-through-12 level. 

But, the other part of your question relates to, How do you measure whether you’re succeeding? And I’ve spent some time with Education Secretary Arne Duncan, I know he’s very interested in that. 

The folks in the Domestic Policy Council in the White House—Melody Barnes and her crew—are very interested in that, and I think 

we’re going to have some innovative offerings for you as to how 

we’re going to do a better job of monitoring what’s working and 

what’s not. Because, as interested as we are in developing new 

projects and programs that will advance the ball with respect to 

STEM education, we’re also interested in discontinuing the ones 

that aren’t working—in part, in order to make the resources available for the good ones. And so, we have to get better at measurement, at monitoring, at metrics—and it’s our intention to do it. 

Senator NELSON. Dr. Braun, NASA has announced the Summer 

of Innovation for math, science, engineering. What does NASA expect to accomplish with this proposal? 

Dr. BRAUN. So, Summer of Innovation is part of NASA’s strategy 

for Educate to Innovate. We are—we have a pilot program that’ll 

be starting this year. It’ll be rolled out in five states that are actually—there’s a callout and there are proposals being prepared for 

the selection of those states. 

We hope to roll out the program to over 100,000 middle school 

students. And the program will take place in their states, with 

47 

NASA content infused into that program. And we’ll conclude with 

a major national event, where all of that is brought together with 

a science, technology, and education—mathematics focus. 

Senator NELSON. And how much funding are you going to be allocating to this? 

Dr. BRAUN. There’s $10 million in this first part of the program, 

and then the program grows in the out years. 

Senator NELSON. In the 2011 budget, Dr. Holdren, it continues 

a commitment to double the budgets of NSF, DOE Office of 

Science, and NIST laboratories, and all of those are authorized by 

the COMPETES Act. 

Now, in your testimony, you note that, quote, ‘‘trim parts that 

have been proven to be less valuable,’’ end of quote. And since the 

COMPETES Act is only 3 years old and full funding hasn’t come 

through, how can we evaluate programs in such a manner? 

Dr. HOLDREN. I think that’s a good question. One of the indicators is places where one has had opportunities that we thought 

were attractive put out there, that people aren’t taking us up on, 

which suggests that maybe those particular programs have misjudged the demand or the opportunity. And even in a fairly short 

period of time, if people aren’t lining up to take advantage of the 

resources and the opportunities, you can pretty well conclude that 

there’s probably something better you can do with the resource. 

But, again, I think you’re right in the implication that we need 

to invest more effort in determining what’s working and what’s not. 

Senator NELSON. What do you think that you ought to do with 

NOAA on an expanded role as we reauthorize this Act? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, I’ve already said, I think NOAA’s immensely 

important in the domain of understanding what’s going on with our 

oceans and our atmosphere and their interaction, what’s going on 

with our fisheries, in the large domain of climate science and the 

domain of weather and climate monitoring. We’ve put, in the budget proposal for Fiscal Year 2011, a substantial increase for NOAA. 

Some of it is part of the resolution of the problems of the 

NPOESS—the National Polar Orbiting Operational Environmental 

Satellite System—which we’re fixing, in part, by giving NOAA a 

larger responsibility in that domain. And, you know, I’m sure hoping that the Congress goes along with the President’s budget proposal for increasing NOAA’s budget, for all of these reasons. 

Senator NELSON. Dr. Bement, the COMPETES Act stressed the 

need for basic research funding for high risk, high reward. Then, 

a couple of years ago, the National Science Board report found that 

investigators are reluctant to submit radical or paradigm-challenging research ideas to NSF, given the low conventional success 

rate. So, describe what steps NSF has taken to increase funding for 

high-risk, high-reward research. 

Dr. BEMENT. Thank you for the question, Senator. 

We’re taking such steps that members of the community that 

submit proposals that they have shaved because they don’t reflect 

high risk will probably be turned down. We have allocated $2 million, in each of our divisions this year, to develop new approaches 

for not only doing merit review, and conducting solicitations, but 

also using new methodologies for identifying high-risk research. We 

48 

would like to believe that all of our proposals are potentially transformative, but that’s a little bit different than high risk. 

There are a lot of proposals that are very high return that aren’t 

necessarily high risk, so the risk-to-return ratio is perhaps even 

more favorable. 

But, nevertheless, identifying research activities that are potentially transformative, that can really make a paradigm shift, that 

perhaps can even define a new field of research, especially interdisciplinary research, is what the Foundation is all about. 

So, we’re providing training, not only for our program officers, 

but also for our panelists, our reviewers, to activate them to invest, 

or at least to examine more carefully, proposals for potential candidates for high-risk research. Furthermore, in some cases, we’re 

even activating shadow panels to do a second-round review to see 

what might have been overlooked. 

We’re developing new methodologies for attracting and soliciting 

high-risk research with the community itself. We’ve used things 

called ‘‘sandpits,’’ which I can provide, for the record, what that’s 

all about. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

Sandpits 

THE NSF Sandpit (now renamed as Ideas Labs) is modeled on the ‘‘IDEAs Factory’’ program developed by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council 

(EPSRC) of the United Kingdom (UK). The concept of the IDEAs Factory program 

is to organize intensive interactive residential workshops (called sandpits) involving 

20–30 participants, with the aim of developing new and bold approaches to address 

grand challenge questions for topics that could benefit from a new dimension in 

thinking. 

An essential element of the Ideas Lab is a highly multidisciplinary mix of participants, some being active researchers and some being potential users of research outcomes, to drive lateral thinking and radical approaches to addressing particular research challenges. NSF issues an open solicitation, and interested individuals submit a 2-page preliminary proposal, in which they answer questions about their experience and expertise as well as questions designed to assess personal attributes such 

as communication skills, collaborative behavior, and level of creativity. A panel of 

reviewers evaluates the applications and identifies a pool of potential participants 

from a range of disciplines and backgrounds that have a high potential to contribute 

to research at the interface between disciplines and to develop new and highly original research ideas. NSF program directors make the final selections from the pool. 

During the Ideas Lab, which is run by professional facilitators, the participants 

develop research projects on the selected topic, incorporating real-time peer review 

from the other participants and a panel of reviewers. Iterative project development 

activities are used to select and advance the most meritorious, transformative, and 

innovative project ideas. Outcomes at the end of the workshop are research project 

concepts that vary in scale and scope in addressing the grand challenge topic of the 

Ideas Lab. At the end of the Ideas Lab, the panel of reviewers provides a consensus 

report summarizing their evaluation of each project concept. Based on this review, 

the NSF program directors invite the submission of full proposals for some, none, 

or all of the project concepts. The participants have 8 weeks to submit the full proposals, which are then reviewed by the same panel using NSF’s two merit review 

criteria. A specified amount of funding is set aside up front to support some or all 

of the meritorious research projects emerging from the Ideas Lab; however, no one 

is guaranteed funding by virtue of participating. 

The current Ideas Lab activity was developed following NSF participation in a 

joint NSF–EPSRC sandpit focusing on synthetic biology, held in spring 2009. Five 

innovative, interdisciplinary, and international projects were funded as a result of 

that activity: 

1. Synthetic integrons for continuous directed evolution of complex genetic ensembles (lead award is 0943392) 

49 

2. Synthetic aesthetics: connecting synthetic biology and creative design 

(0944139) 

3. Engineering genetically augmented polymers (lead award is 0943383) 

4. Cyberplasm: An autonomous micro-robot constructed using synthetic biology 

(lead award is 0943345) 

5. Programming the rhizosphere through highly integrated genetic, spatio-temporal control systems (lead award is 0943385) 

Dr. BEMENT. It’s something we do jointly with the research councils in the United Kingdom to support high-risk research. We’ve 

had a very successful round in the area of biosciences for synthetic 

biology. 

We have some solicitations that stress transformative high-risk 

research. Our program in Cyber-enabled Discovery and Innovation 

is a case in point. And there are other such programs. 

So, this year we’re doing the development, we’re doing the exploration, we’re trying new things. At the same time, we’re assessing 

those activities, and we hope to, by next year, have a pretty good 

sense of what works, what’s effective, and what will increase the 

ratio of proposals that we fund that are truly transformative, or potentially transformative. 

Senator NELSON. Dr. Braun, are you going to be engaging in 

high-risk, high-reward innovative research funding? 

Dr. BRAUN. Absolutely. In fact, the Space Technology Program 

was set up specifically for that purpose. It’s a DARPA-like program, but we’re going after grand challenges. We’re going after 

large goals. I don’t—it’s possible that several of the items within 

that program that we fund—that they won’t all succeed. But in 

total—if you want to go after game-changers—in total, we’re going 

to make significant progress in a number of technological areas 

through that program. 

Senator NELSON. Dr. Gallagher, high-risk, high-reward technologies in the Technology Innovation Program—it’s about 80 million a year. It’s funded more like a pilot program than a serious 

investment and critical national needs. What do you think about 

that? 

Dr. GALLAGHER. I agree with you on that. I think the Technology 

Innovation Program, which was specifically designed to target 

high-risk, high-payoff projects on technologies to address critical 

national needs, has all the right ingredients for an effective program. But, it has to be considered, in this context, really at a pilot 

level, only because, at this level, it’s not going to have a large national impact. And so, in that spirit, one of the things we’re focused 

on is trying to determine—to your first question, How are we going 

to look at it and assess whether this is something that should grow 

or that we should look at? And, as Dr. Holdren said, maybe it’s not 

the right program for the right time. 

So, we’re really focused on the metric question right now. But, 

it seems to have all the right ingredients for this kind of program. 

Senator NELSON. Well, in the current Fiscal Year, you were authorized 140 million for the Technology Innovation Program. Are 

you going to have meaningful money in the Fiscal Year 2011 increase to award a competition? 

50 

Dr. GALLAGHER. Yes. With the increase proposed in the President’s budget, there is certainly money for a very meaningful competition in new critical national need areas. 

Senator NELSON. Dr. Bement, broadband for research purposes 

requires a national network, and we think it ought to connect the 

entire research community. What’s NSF’s vision for the next-generation network? 

Dr. BEMENT. Well, your point is right on target. We are currently 

paying attention to greater connectivity, especially in the EPSCoR 

states. And we invested some of the Recovery Act funding to bring 

about greater connectivity, not only intracampus, but intercampus, 

among universities. 

We do have a robust backbone network across the country in— 

interconnecting major regions. But, this middle road, which is between the local area network on campus and connection to the 

broadband backbone networks, is still missing, in some respects. 

So, this is going to take time, but—with the resources that we have 

at hand—but it clearly is part of our facility and infrastructure investment portfolio. 

Senator NELSON. I have a number of questions I’m going to submit for the record so that we can get on to our colleagues. 

I’m going to ask two more. 

We want to get more bang for the buck when it comes to converting research into high-tech goods and services, and therefore, 

the stimulation to the economy. Dr. Holdren, what specific steps 

should we do to help you make that happen? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, Senator Nelson, I think one of the important 

ingredients of a strategy for doing that is promoting public-private 

partnerships of a wider variety of kinds in a wider variety of applications. When you want to get something into the market—am I 

not coming through? 

Senator NELSON. Yes. Please. 

Dr. HOLDREN. When you want to get something into the marketplace, you really need to have folks intimately involved in the effort 

who understand the market, and nobody understands the market 

like the private sector. And that’s one of the reasons that, in the 

Department of Energy, for example, where we’re very eager to 

bridge the gap between research and development and actual application, we’re working more and more with public-private partnerships. 

We’ve spent a lot of effort over the years connecting the National 

Laboratories to the private sector to get innovations from the National Laboratory system out into the marketplace. And a major 

part of the President’s innovation strategy is promoting partnerships of a variety of kinds, but including, especially, the government-private sector partnerships, so that you get the benefits of the 

government’s engagement at the more fundamental and early applied level, and the benefits of the private sector’s insights, as 

you’re starting to move toward converting these things into products. 

Senator NELSON. Has OSTP’s integrity review process uncovered 

any instances of suppression or distortion of federally funded research? 

51 

Dr. HOLDREN. No, we have not encountered any instances of that 

to this point. We’re not, I should emphasize, engaged in a systematic review. We’re not—you know, we’re not inspector generals. 

We’ve been—we’re looking at principles and guidelines, but we are 

interacting with the agencies, and we’re looking at cases that have 

been identified as potentially problematic. And I have not seen anything so far, that would meet the description of suppression or distortion. 

Senator NELSON. All right. 

I’ve got a number of questions I going to submit for the record. 

Senator Klobuchar has to leave. 

Senator Thune, I, too, have a big delegation that’s waiting on me, 

so if you would ask your questions and then adjourn the hearing. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. I can stay for 5 minutes, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator NELSON. OK. Thank you. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. [presiding]. Thank you. 

Senator NELSON. Senator Thune. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA 

Senator THUNE. I was wondering if you were going to turn the 

gavel over to me. That would be kind of dangerous, I would think. 

But—— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator THUNE. Well, I want to—I appreciate the hearing today, 

and I want to thank the panelists for joining us. 

As everybody knows, we are still coping with the effects of a deep 

recession; and understandably, when you’ve got about 15 million 

people who are out of work, most of the discussion in Congress is 

focused on immediate economic growth and job creation. Today’s 

hearing, however, brings a slightly different perspective, because 

it’s about improving THE science, technology, education, and research programs that’ll keep our country competitive in the long 

term. And I think it’s fair to say that wise investments today will 

ensure the United States is a leader in technology and development 

years into the future. 

And so, I want to thank our witnesses for their testimony. 

I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Committee 

as we reauthorize the America COMPETES Act and improve other 

important programs. 

And in the interest of time, I will just ask a couple of quick questions, and then yield to my colleague from Minnesota. 

Dr. Bement, you had mentioned, in your testimony, that since 

2001, the number of proposals submitted to NSF has increased by 

over 50 percent, and I’m interested if you could comment on how 

the NSF ensures that the selection process is done in a fair and 

transparent manner. You also mentioned increasing participation 

in science and engineering in all states and regions, as a goal, and 

I would be interested in knowing what your specific plans are to 

geographically diversify NSF programs, particularly as those plans 

relate to the future of EPSCoR. 

So, first question has to do with the selection process, and making sure that it’s done on a fair and transparent basis. 

52 

Dr. BEMENT. We work very hard to maintain our merit review 

process as the gold standard in the world, for rigorous, objective review—proposal review. And we take whatever measures are necessary to assure that, independent of the amount of proposal volume, so that even during Fiscal Year 2009, with the Recovery Act, 

where we put out 80 percent of $3 billion on top of our omnibus 

bill, we were able to achieve that, which indicates that the Foundation is resilient, for a time. It’s something that can’t be sustained, 

but in the motivation that NSF staff feel in supporting the science 

and engineering community, they’ll put the extra effort in. 

But, I have to say that 2009 broke up a few families, perhaps, 

and caused some physical hardship—health hardship, on some of 

our staff. So, it’s absolutely essential, if we’re going to sustain that 

quality of effort, that we pay attention to additional staffing requirements within the Foundation, because the work stress has 

continued to go up as the proposal volume has gone up. 

With regard to the second question, we have a lot of respect for 

the EPSCoR community, and we want to see the EPSCoR community succeed. So, we have taken a strategic approach, over the last 

3 or 4 years, working with the community to develop, with the 

state, the strategic plans to get the best impact for the amount of 

resources that are available to EPSCoR. 

We have also tried to achieve an appropriate balance between cofunding and research infrastructure improvement. It’s true that 

most universities would prefer to have the research infrastructure 

improvement funding. On the other hand, it’s the cofunding that 

causes most of the leverage within the Foundation. And in many 

cases, that leverage can be quite significant, perhaps as much as 

three times. 

So, in the Fiscal Year 2011 budget, our intent is to reemphasize 

cofunding, inasmuch as so much RII funding was made available 

during the Recovery Act. And some of that funding will spend out 

over the next 2 or 3 years, in any case, because it was forwardfunded to begin with. 

I think that’s our basic strategy, unless you have a follow-up 

question. 

Senator THUNE. On the issue of geographic diversification, how 

do you go about seeing that some of these are distributed around 

the country. 

Dr. BEMENT. Well, there is one other aspect of that, and that is 

that we have been encouraging some of the EPSCoR—two things— 

we’ve been encouraging some of the EPSCoR jurisdictions to take 

a more regional approach so that there can be a greater leveraging 

of overall resources, not only physical resources, but intellectual resources, because some states don’t have all the capacity or capability to do all the research—the kinds of research they would like 

to do. So, trying to get more geographic leverage, more intellectual 

leverage, more financial leverage, and try to find the sweet spot in 

that, among those functions, is one of our strategies. 

The—I forgot what the second one was that I wanted to point 

out. It was very important, but I lost it. 

Senator THUNE. All right. Well, if you think of it, that would be 

fine. We’ll make sure we get it into the record. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

53 

EPSCoR and Geographic Diversity 

Another approach follows from the leveraging by states of resources provided by 

NSF EPSCoR and by other agencies having EPSCoR or EPSCoR-like programs in 

complementary areas of science and engineering. 

At present, seven Federal agencies (DOD, DOE, EPA, NASA, NIH, NSF, and 

USDA) have EPSCOR or EPSCoR-like programs. In FY 2009, sixteen of the twentynine NSF EPSCoR jurisdictions were eligible to participate in the EPSCoR and 

EPSCoR-like programs of all seven Federal agencies. The extent of leveraging of 

these programs at the jurisdictional level varies, and manifests itself primarily 

where there are complementary areas of science and engineering. 

For example, in New Hampshire, the NSF EPSCoR and NIH Centers of Biomedical Research Excellence (COBRE) teams work together to assess and address 

cyberinfrastructure needs across the state. 

In South Carolina, NSF EPSCoR awards and NIH Institutional Development 

Award (IDeA) leverage efforts to infuse research into education, provide research opportunities for diverse groups of institutions, students, and faculty, and increase collaboration among key stakeholders of the state’s science and technology enterprise. 

Currently, this South Carolina EPSCoR/IDeA cooperation enables collaborative and 

complementary research among the state’s three PhD granting institutions 

(Clemson University, the Medical University of South Carolina, and the University 

of South Carolina) and several predominately undergraduate institutions including 

Furman University, Claflin University, the College of Charleston, Winthrop University, and South Carolina State University (the state’s largest public historically 

black college). 

In Puerto Rico, NSF EPSCoR and NASA EPSCoR have contributed to the establishment of an integrated experimental/theoretical program to address issues relevant to the design, modeling, fabrication, and characterization of nanoscale materials suitable for enhanced rechargeable lithium batteries and fuel cells. In collaboration with researchers at the NASA Glenn Research Center, EPSCoR researchers 

are pursuing the development of proof-of-concept and scale-up of these devices. This 

synergistic collaboration addresses critical early stages of nanomaterial selection 

and synthesis and is expected to proceed to prototype testing and production readiness. 

And I will, with that, Madam Chair, yield back the little time I 

have, and allow you to close things out. 

Thank you. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much, Senator Thune. 

And we would have totally trusted you with the gavel. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. I just have a few more questions to ask. 

We actually did a forum together on this in Sioux Falls—— 

Senator THUNE. We did. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR.—on exports and innovation. 

So, I just had one last set of questions for you, Director Gallagher, and it is just about this idea of innovation being more than 

R&D, something that you talked about in your testimony. I fully 

support—when I talk about an ‘‘innovation agenda,’’ it’s similar to 

what Senator Warner was talking about, with the competitiveness 

strategy for our Nation. And to me, that means everything from 

the visa caps I brought up, to the education and America COMPETES Act, to exports, to looking at, you know, what are these hot 

industries that we want to be promoting. 

But, my specific question to you is how we build on all phases 

of the process so innovations actually spur economic development. 

One of our biggest challenges that I’ve heard from our businesses 

is transitioning a product from R&D to business development. It’s 

often called the ‘‘Valley of Death,’’ because these things get lost, either because they’re not approved or they’re just having trouble 

getting the financing. So, my question is if you could comment on 

54 

that and talk about what role you believe the Federal Government 

can play in bridging this valley and assisting in bringing new products to the market. Or what should we be not doing? 

Dr. GALLAGHER. Great. Thank you. I thought that your comments at the beginning of the hearing encapsulated, for me, very 

much what I think of when I think of the innovation process. It is 

not simply the R&D; it’s the entire process of taking ideas and 

turning them into new products and services, and, in the end, economic activity. And the truth of the matter is, it’s a fragile process 

with lots of pitfalls. A great many number of participants—not simply researchers, scientists, and engineers, but business people, 

market people, trade experts, financial organizations—and I think 

the national innovation strategy that Dr. Holdren talked about actually starts to really capture the fact that this is a very broad program. And it’s had a strong impact, because that diversity is going 

to lead to a large number of Federal agencies each having specialized roles. And one of the things we want to make sure of is that 

there are synergies created, and not unnecessary overlaps. And I 

think the America COMPETES authorization and the innovation 

strategy that the President’s put forward has gone a long way to 

start to create some very effective synergies. 

One of the points I wanted to highlight is that, in this middle 

process of innovation, where you’re taking the ideas out of the laboratory, it’s characterized by no one process; there is no one way 

that this takes place. What it’s characterized by is its diversity, by 

the large number of participations. And the one ingredient that I 

find to be quite central to all of them is the key role that the states, 

local governments, and regional governments play in this process. 

And so, as we look at the reauthorization of America COMPETES, 

one of the important things to look at is the extent to which the 

authorities that are given to the agencies enable us to work closely 

with Federal, state and local governments. 

The MEP program was a good example, where those partnership 

programs were not created out of whole cloth in the states by 

NIST. NIST is one-third of the funding, and what it did was allow 

an existing infrastructure of centers that were already in the states 

to begin to operate in new ways and create synergies by networking them together and disseminating best practices. And I 

think that might be a key Federal role that allows us to both leverage the big state involvement, but also to really nurture what are 

the best ideas out there, and to share those with other areas. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. OK. Thank you. 

Well, thank you, everyone. 

Oh. You wanted to comment, Mr. Bement. 

Dr. BEMENT. I had a much longer comment, which I’ll provide for 

the record. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

The President’s Innovation Agenda clearly describes the importance of three fundamental elements in developing a strong innovation-based economy. Those three 

elements are: (a) support for new discoveries through basic research; (b) support for 

translational research activities primarily through interaction with industry; and (c) 

focus on national grand challenge issues, such as the grand challenges identified by 

the National Academy of Engineering. 

The primary mission for the National Science Foundation is support for basic research in science and engineering. However, a portion of the Foundation’s portfolio 

55 

also supports activities which help to make progress toward bridging the so-called 

‘‘Valley of Death.’’ Primarily through the Engineering and the Computer and Information Science and Engineering directorates, NSF supports multidisciplinary, 

multi-institutional ‘‘center’’ activities that seek those synergies described by Dr. Gallagher in his testimony. For example, the Engineering Research Centers (ERCs) and 

Industry/University Cooperative Research Centers (IUCRCs) require partnership 

among multiple universities, industries, and even state and local economic development and government agencies where appropriate. These partnerships have led to 

both significant success in commercial product development and the spinoff of new 

companies. Since the beginning of the ERC program, over 2,000 patents and licenses 

have been awarded to ERC researchers, and 150 spinoff firms have been established. In addition, the environment fostered by this multidimensional partnership 

not only facilitates the translation of discoveries from basic research to innovative 

products and processes; it also provides an opportunity for industry and commercial 

interests to inspire new areas of pursuit in the basic research arena. 

Dr. BEMENT. But, I did want to make an observation, and that 

is, not only with my experience on the TIP program, under a different name, but also longer-term experience. 

Oftentimes in bringing innovations into the marketplace, the failures are generally not technology failures, they’re business failures. 

And it’s that skill and that knowledge base necessary to link business with technology that’s absolutely critical for survival and sustaining an enterprise through that Valley of Death. 

The other point is that oftentimes invention is pretty much an 

individual effort, or at least—small number of people. Innovation 

is a community effort, and that’s oftentimes not recognized. So, 

people who aspire to innovate or aspire to be entrepreneurs have 

to understand that teams are involved, and you have to have the 

right skills, and this is what Pat was calling attention to. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. OK. Well, thank you very much. 

And I will say that I was pleased that the President talked about 

innovation at the beginning of the State of the Union, and exports, 

and things like that, because I believe that this can be a defining 

way to move our country forward with this competitive strategy innovation. I think it brings people together in a way, and it’s the 

right thing to do for our country. So, I’m hoping we’re going to hear 

a lot more about it. And it crosses over so many areas, but it’s a 

theme that we can use. 

And I just—again, every time I get home, that’s what we’re talking about, you know. And we all know Medtronic started in a garage and 3M started as a little company in Two Harbors, Minnesota, and so, we have so many examples of it in our state, that 

it’s real to people, and they see the success that we can get with 

this. So, that’s what I’m hoping that we are going to hear more and 

more from the Administration as a way of defining what we’re 

doing and how we’re moving forward. I think it will be very helpful. 

There’s so much we can say here on these hearings for the C– 

SPAN audience and our friends, and there is so much that we can 

say at home, but we really need this—the President to take this 

on as a defining strategy and agenda. And I know he believes in 

it, and I know there are a lot of things going on, but I believe that’s 

what’s going to bring us together and move this country forward. 

So, thank you for your work. I appreciate it. 

[Whereupon, at 4:29 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(57) 

A P P E N D I X 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. BILL NELSON TO

HON. JOHN P. HOLDREN, PH.D. 

Question 1. Why does the EPSCoT program continue to go unfunded? 

Answer. The Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Technology 

(EPSCoT) was a program to stimulate technology commercialization in eligible 

states by promoting partnerships between state governments, universities, community colleges, and the private sector. The Administration is highly supportive of policies to catalyze the formation of regional innovation clusters in areas that currently 

lack the scientific and technological infrastructure for technology-based economic 

growth. Instead of EPSCoT, the 2011 Budget proposes: support for regional innovation clusters in Commerce’s Economic Development Administration; new funding for 

innovation ecosystem partnerships in the National Science Foundation; expanded 

funding for the Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership; and expanded linkages between existing agency programs to foster regional economic growth, such as 

in the recently announced initiative undertaken by 7 Federal agencies to support 

an Energy Research Innovation Cluster (E-RIC). These initiatives show great promise in spurring job creation from technology-based economic development in areas 

that currently lack strong partnerships and regional innovation collaborations. 

Question 2. As policymakers look for innovative ways to spur job creation, isn’t 

it worth looking at EPSCoT as a potential model? 

Answer. Although EPSCoT is a potential model, the other policies described in the 

response to Question 1, above, appear to show greater promise for regional economic 

development and job creation. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. MARK WARNER TO

HON. JOHN P. HOLDREN, PH.D. 

Question 1. The United States is one of the few countries without a national competitiveness strategy. The UK, South Korea, the Netherlands, Ireland, and Denmark 

have all created their own strategies while the most recent comparable U.S. assessment was in 1978. 

• If Congress authorizes a new national competitiveness strategy, what are the 

top two or three issues you think we should include? Please be specific. 

• To what extent are you aware of competitiveness strategies in other countries? 

Do you think we could use other approaches as a starting point or should we 

be focusing on other issues? Which ones? 

• Which competitiveness strategies and which competitors should we be most influenced by as we develop our own strategy? How should the U.S. measure itself 

against these other strategies? 

Answer. The Obama Administration in September 2009 released A Strategy for 

American Innovation: Driving Toward Sustainable Growth and Quality Jobs. It 

serves as a competitiveness strategy for the Administration; we believe it is very 

close to being a national competitiveness strategy. The strategy identifies the top 

three issues for achieving sustainable growth and quality jobs: catalyzing breakthroughs for national priorities; promoting competitive markets that spur productive 

entrepreneurship; and investing in the building blocks of American innovation. The 

strategy discusses specific policy measures the Administration is pursuing or plans 

to pursue to make progress toward each of the top three issues. For example, to invest in the building blocks of American innovation the strategy outlines specific policies, including: the President’s Plan for Science and Innovation to double the budgets of three key science agencies as identified in the America COMPETES Act; the 

2011 Budget’s proposal to make the Research and Experimentation Tax Credit permanent; and ongoing support for the Next Generation Air Transportation System 

(NextGen) as part of an effort to build a leading physical infrastructure. In preVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:54 Feb 28, 2011 Jkt 064707 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\64707.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
58 

paring the strategy, the National Economic Council and OSTP considered the competitiveness strategies of other countries, as well as ideas for a U.S. strategy proposed by U.S. organizations such as the Council on Competitiveness and the National Academies. These documents share many common themes with the Administration strategy, including investments in R&D, STEM education, and infrastructure; policies to encourage open markets, access to capital, and innovation-based entrepreneurship; and a focus of government attention on key national priorities. 

Some of the specific policy proposals in the Administration strategy are inspired by 

specific proposals from other nations’ strategies; for example, the goal for the U.S. 

to invest 3 percent of GDP on R&D is similar to the European Union’s 3 percent 

goal articulated as part of the EU’s Lisbon agenda. As we measure the United 

States’ progress toward improving economic competitiveness, we will be measuring 

our progress most closely against the progress of our closest economic competitors 

such as the European nations, Japan, and South Korea, and also against the 

progress of rapidly growing lesser-developed competitors such as China. 

Question 2. The America COMPETES act has been largely successful, but it seems 

to assume commercialization of new technology will just happen, assuming we do 

the right research and come up with good ideas. We need more than that for longterm success and innovation. 

• One possibility is to create a new Federal initiative, in partnership with universities, to create a system of university-based support for entrepreneurs and tech 

transfer. In addition to existing programs such as STTR—which provides funding to specific companies for technology transfer—the Federal Government 

could fund incubation centers within university communities. What do you 

think about this concept? Could this type of program help spur commercialization? 

• Are there other ideas that should be considered such as public-private partnerships or other concepts? If so, what should they look like? 

Answer. The Obama Administration is supportive of new Federal initiatives to 

create a system of university-based support for entrepreneurs and tech transfer. As 

one example, the 2011 Budget proposes $12 million in the National Science Foundation’s (NSF) Engineering directorate for an ‘‘NSF Innovation Ecosystem.’’ This program would provide research grants to universities in partnership with other institutions to increase the social and economic impacts of university research, including 

the impacts of commercialization, industry alliances, and start-up formulation. The 

program aims to develop regional innovation communities around universities. We 

believe this type of program could help spur commercialization of promising university research. Also, the Department of Commerce’s Economic Development Administration is implementing a regional innovation cluster initiative that seeks to promote public-private partnerships that support the commercialization of new technologies. 

Question 3. Should there be more focus on clean energy technology, as part of a 

COMPETES reauthorization? Do you have ideas in terms of other initiatives Congress could create or existing programs we could improve? 

Answer. As I stated in my testimony, Congress has the opportunity this year to 

strengthen the parts of the COMPETES Act that have the most capacity to leverage 

the American economy and secure America’s future. Just as the original COMPETES Act authorized the creation of ARPA–E and laid the foundation for its eventual launch in April of last year, the reauthorization of the COMPETES Act is an 

opportunity for Congress to lay the foundations for other innovative approaches to 

addressing the challenges we face. One of the grand challenges we face as a nation 

is the challenge of developing and deploying a new generation of clean energy technologies. To meet this challenge, Congress has the opportunity to authorize DOE’s 

Energy Innovation Hubs. The 2011 Budget includes support for four Energy Innovation Hubs to accelerate cross-disciplinary R&D for transforming advances in energy 

science into commercially deployable materials, devices, and systems: three appropriated by Congress last year to advance fuels from sunlight, modeling and simulation for nuclear reactors, and energy-efficient building systems design; and one new 

Hub to conduct R&D on batteries and energy storage. 

ARPA–E supports high-risk, high-reward research to yield revolutionary changes 

in how we produce, distribute, and use energy. ARPA–E announced its first set of 

grants last October and in 2010 will make additional awards with Recovery Act 

funds. Now that it is a fully operational agency, Congress has the opportunity to 

reauthorize ARPA–E in the reauthorization of the America COMPETES Act. 

59 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. BILL NELSON TO

DR. ARDEN BEMENT, JR. 

Question 1. What efforts does NSF have underway for universities to teach computer science and software engineering graduates to develop software securely? If 

NSF doesn’t support secure software engineering, who can be responsible for this? 

Answer. The Directorate for Computer and Information Science and Engineering 

(CISE) supports a significant effort in foundational cybersecurity research, most notably through the Trustworthy Computing (TwC) program. The goal of TwC research is to ensure that our increasingly ubiquitous and distributed computing and 

communication systems deliver the quality of service they are designed to achieve, 

without disruption, while enabling and preserving privacy, security, and trust. Education programs are included in several large TwC awards, such as: 

• A center-scale award at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign on 

trustworthy cyber infrastructure for the power grid includes an education program that provides an integrated undergraduate and graduate experience for 

students in cyber trust issues. 

• A science and technology center at the University of California—Berkeley on 

ubiquitous secure technology includes an education and outreach program that 

transfers new and existing knowledge to undergraduate colleges, educational institutions serving under-represented populations, and the K–12 community, 

thus laying the groundwork for training the scientists and engineers who will 

develop the next generation of trustworthy systems. 

• A collaborative award at North Carolina State University on trustworthy virtual cloud computing involves both graduate and undergraduate students and 

will produce open source software and tools which will be made available to the 

public. 

These and other education and outreach programs in large CISE awards help ensure that computer science and engineering students have access to education and 

training in safety and security issues for all computing components, i.e., hardware, 

software, systems and networks. etc. 

CISE and the Directorate for Education and Human Resources (EHR) are jointly 

sponsoring a summit on research and education in secure software engineering, 

planned for the last week in July 2010, in Washington, D.C. The summit will bring 

together a multi-disciplinary group of experts in trustworthy computing research 

and education to develop a comprehensive agenda focused on research and education challenges related to secure software engineering. The group of participants 

will include representatives from academia, professional organizations across the 

public and private sectors, as well as policymakers and government representatives. 

This multi-disciplinary group will bring the needed depth (technical challenges) and 

breadth (operational constraints) to advance and improve the state-of-the art in education in trustworthy computing and software engineering. 

In addition to these research programs and educational outreach, CISE also supports a number of graduate research fellowships in fields of study that promote reliability and security, such as information security and assurance, and funds workshops focused on secure software and trustworthy computing. 

EHR supports secure software engineering education through several programs, 

including: 

• Advanced Technological Education (ATE) focuses on the education of technicians for the high-technology fields that drive our Nation’s economy, with an 

emphasis on two-year colleges. Several projects, including three regional centers 

in cybersecurity, focus on education related to secure coding. 

• Transforming Undergraduate Education in Science, Technology, Engineering, 

and Mathematics (TUES) aims to improve the quality of STEM education for 

all undergraduate students. The program supports several projects that create, 

adapt, and disseminate new learning materials and teaching strategies in secure software engineering. 

• Federal Cyber Service: Scholarship for Service (SFS) seeks to increase the number of qualified students entering the fields of Information Assurance and to increase the capacity of the United States higher education enterprise in cyber 

security, including secure software development. 

Thus, NSF supports secure software engineering through basic research and education activities. NSF also works closely with other agencies on these topics through 

the Networking and Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD) 

program and through collaborations with the Department of Education. 

60 

Question 2. What was the problem with the way NSF was managing the grant 

program for minority serving institutions? 

Answer. Three separate NSF programs with similar goals—the Louis Stokes Alliances for Minority Participation (LSAMP), the Historically Black Colleges and Universities Undergraduate Program (HBCU–UP), and the Tribal Colleges and Universities Program (TCUP)—will serve as the basis for the new comprehensive broadening participation program. These long-standing programs have facilitated learning 

and development for tens of thousands of undergraduate students pursuing STEM 

careers. More importantly, LSAMP, HBCU–UP, and TCUP institutions have contributed to the success of African American, Hispanic, and Native American undergraduate students in STEM at disproportionate rates compared to other institutions. These specific NSF programs have also helped to strengthen the success of 

the institutions where large populations of those underrepresented minority students attend. 

The new comprehensive broadening participation program will be introduced in 

FY 2011, but existing programs will not be terminated abruptly. NSF intends to develop a five-year transition period of bridging between programs. During the planning and transition, we expect to incorporate community feedback in shaping the 

new program. 

However, the numbers for underrepresented minorities in STEM remain small 

relative to the general STEM workforce. In higher education, there is a disproportionate rate of attrition for underrepresented minority students in STEM majors. A 

strategic and cost-effective approach is needed to maximize impact in broadening 

participation in undergraduate STEM. We believe that a single, new comprehensive 

program, that draws the best of these three NSF programs into a comprehensive 

effort with additional new features and emphases, will lead to solutions that are significantly more effective than what has been achieved. We hope to build on the 

knowledge accumulated and structures identified from LSAMP, HBCU–UP and 

TCUP and stimulate new approaches that will develop more talent within current 

high-producing institutions and catalyze expansion of institutions that can become 

high-producing. 

Question 3. Are you concerned that this new approach will force the MSIs to compete against each other? How is this a desirable policy objective? 

Answer. NSF plays the role of catalyst for new ideas and innovations in awarding 

grants. An expected outcome of the comprehensive effort is that institutions would 

collaborate and cooperate across institution types to learn from each other and create a community of scholars in sync with cultivating talent and increasing outputs 

and outcomes in STEM for all underrepresented minority students. This is especially important for bringing together institutions that may have common commitments to growth in particular disciplinary areas and to broadening participation in 

those areas. We see the program as creating new opportunities for collaboration 

among MSIs, as well as for forming partnerships with other research institutions. 

Another expected outcome is to position the program for future growth and greater impact. The FY 2011 Budget Request represents an increase of $13 million more 

than the combined budgets of the current undergraduate programs. Additional resources in the form of co-funding and other leveraging will be available from other 

NSF directorates and offices. There is very strong Foundation-wide interest in the 

potential of this new program for broadening participation in specific scientific disciplines, and initial planning conversations across the Foundation are generating a 

number of creative suggestions for collaboration and leveraging of both intellectual 

and fiscal resources. 

Question 4. How can we tell how much NSF plans to dedicate to historically black 

colleges and universities, Hispanic serving institutions, and tribal colleges? 

Answer. Consistent with other NSF programs, the new comprehensive program 

does not guarantee particular levels of funding to categories of organizations submitting proposals, but funds proposals on a competitive basis following the agency’s 

merit review process. The solicitation for the new comprehensive program will include strategically designed project tracks with emphasis on collaboration and cooperation that provide a range of options and avenues for HBCUs, TCUs, and HSIs 

to seek funding. Institutions will be able to create new alliances and partnerships 

that can leverage more resources, build on effective practice, and enhance efforts to 

move STEM education and research to the next level of innovations. Institutions 

that face challenges in infrastructure and capacity for innovation will have opportunities to employ targeted approaches that are tailored to the needs and context of 

the institution and its students but will also link collaboratively and cooperatively 

through partnership to intensify efforts from a national perspective. 

61 

1www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/innovation-whitepaper.pdf. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. MARK WARNER TO

DR. ARDEN BEMENT, JR. 

Question 1. The United States is one of the few countries without a national competitiveness strategy. The UK, South Korea, the Netherlands, Ireland, and Denmark 

have all created their own strategies while the most recent comparable U.S. assessment was in 1978. If Congress authorizes a new national competitiveness strategy, 

what are the top two or three issues you think we should include? Please be specific. 

Answer. The National Economic Council and the Office of Science and Technology 

Policy have developed ‘‘A Strategy for American Innovation: Driving Toward Sustainable Growth and Quality Jobs.’’ 1 This strategy focuses on three critical areas: 

investing in the building blocks of American innovation; promoting competitive markets that spur productive entrepreneurship; and catalyzing breakthroughs for national priorities. Within those areas, the strategy emphasizes fundamental research, 

education, physical infrastructure, entrepreneurship and innovation. 

Question 2. To what extent are you aware of competitiveness strategies in other 

countries? Do you think we could use other approaches as a starting point or should 

we be focusing on other issues? Which ones? 

Answer. As the Director of NSF, I meet with my counterparts around the world 

and our discussions often include issues such as competitive strategies. In the global 

wave of market liberalization since the 1990s, many governments have come to view 

S&T as integral to their economic and social development. They have taken steps 

to open their markets to trade and foreign investment, develop or recast their S&T 

infrastructures, stimulate industrial R&D by domestic and foreign-based companies 

or their joint ventures, expand their higher education systems, build indigenous 

R&D capabilities, and develop the capability to compete at the highest level of technical excellence in the world economy. 

This has brought a great expansion of the world’s S&T activities and their shift 

toward developing economies in Asia. In the midst of these changes, the United 

States continues to maintain a position of leadership in most broad aspects of S&T 

activities but, as noted, it has experienced a gradual erosion of its position in many 

specific areas, from education to intellectual property, innovation and high technology goods exports, where we have run a persistent deficit in this decade. 

Most of the rapid growth in S&T activity is driven by China and several other 

Asian economies (India, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, South 

Korea, Thailand, Taiwan) that seek to boost access to and quality of higher education and to develop world class S&T infrastructures. These other Asian economies 

form a loosely structured supplier zone for China’s high technology manufacturing 

export industries. Japan, long a preeminent world S&T nation, is losing ground to 

these other Asian economies in overall high-tech manufacturing and trade. 

The EU largely has held its own in the face of these changes. Its innovation-focused policies have been supported by a shared currency and the elimination of internal trade and migration barriers. (Much of the EU trade is with other EU members.) EU research performance is strong and marked by pronounced EU-supported 

intra-EU collaboration. The EU is also focusing on boosting the quality and international standing of its universities. 

What can one conclude from this? Science and technology are no longer the province of developed nations but have, in a sense, become ‘‘democratized.’’ These developments open the way for widespread international collaboration; they also carry 

with them the challenge of competition. And in a world where many more centers 

of excellence in S&T are rising, broad international engagement will enable the 

United States to capitalize on advances made elsewhere. 

Question 3. Which competitiveness strategies and which competitors should we be 

most influenced by as we develop our own strategy? How should the U.S. measure 

itself against these other strategies? 

Answer. While the U.S. should look at the competitive strategies of our allies in 

Europe, our neighbors in North America, and countries such as China, South Korea, 

India and Japan, we need to evaluate how successful those strategies have been. 

However, we also need to be cognizant of the differences between other countries 

and our own. The true strength of this country is the strong entrepreneurial culture 

that allows small businesses to take risks and fail, and connecting that willingness 

to take risks with the S&T knowledge coming out of universities. Our universities 

spawn innovation and connect with both small and large companies. This is a 

unique situation that other countries are imitating around the globe. This entrepreVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:54 Feb 28, 2011 Jkt 064707 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\64707.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
62 

2http://sites.nationalacademies.org/PGA/sbir/PGAl054939. 

neurial culture has been our strength in the past, and it must be a continuing emphasis as we move forward. 

Question 4. The America COMPETES act has been largely successful, but it seems 

to assume commercialization of new technology will just happen, assuming we do 

the right research and come up with good ideas. We need more than that for longterm success and innovation. 

One possibility is to create a new Federal initiative, in partnership with universities, to create a system of university-based support for entrepreneurs and tech 

transfer. Rather than just funding programs like STTR, which provide funding to 

specific companies, the Federal Government could fund incubation centers within 

the university communities. What do you think about this concept? Could this type 

of program help spur commercialization? Are there other ideas that should be considered such as public-private partnerships or other concepts? If so, what should 

they look like? 

Answer. When discussing global competitiveness, every possible mechanism to 

jump start innovation and commercialization should be on the table. According to 

a 2008 report issued by the National Research Council, both the STTR and SBIR 

programs have been shown to be effective, not just at NSF but across the Federal 

Government.2 With venture capital in the U.S. declining, the Federal Government 

may need to step in to help traverse the ‘‘valley of death.’’ We should look at other 

complementary methods and programs, of which university-based incubation centers 

are just one. 

NSF has numerous university-based partnership programs with industry with 

proven value. Many of our centers programs partner closely with industry, including 

our Science and Technology Centers, Centers for Chemical Innovation, Engineering 

Research Centers, and Materials Research Science and Engineering Centers. 

In the FY 2011 Budget Request, NSF proposed to further explore the acceleration 

of innovation through a significant investment in a new aspect of the Partnership 

for Innovation program called the ‘‘NSF Innovation Ecosystem.’’ This effort will provide research grants to universities in partnership with other institutions to increase the economic and social impacts of research, as well as develop a regional 

community to support an innovation ecosystem around the university. 

Question 5. Should there be more focus on clean energy technology, as part of a 

COMPETES reauthorization? Do you have ideas in terms of other initiatives Congress could create or existing programs we could improve? 

Answer. There should be careful consideration given to whether the COMPETES 

reauthorization should highlight specific areas of research and education (such as 

clean energy) or if it should focus on advancing innovation and competitiveness 

broadly. 

A key input for this discussion should be NSF’s ability to address national priorities while also advancing science and engineering generally. Two examples of this 

are presented in NSF’s FY 2011 Budget Request. 

• Science, Engineering and Education for Sustainability (SEES) will integrate 

NSF’s efforts in climate and energy science and engineering to generate the discoveries and capabilities needed to inform societal actions that lead to environmental and economic sustainability. Included in this investment is a focus on 

research and development in the area of clean energy. 

• RE-gaining our ENERGY Science and Engineering Edge (RE-ENERGYSE), a 

partnership between NSF and the Department of Energy, will help the Nation 

retain its leadership position in science and engineering by attracting and educating future scientists in the clean energy field. 

Question 6. Over the past 3 years, the America COMPETES Act has sought to 

increase funding at the NSF, NIST and the DOE Office of Science in order to increase our Nation’s innovation and competitiveness. In your opinion, what were 

some of the key areas that were positively affected by COMPETES and what areas 

need further work? Do you have any specific recommendations that you would like 

to see the Committee address during the reauthorizing of the COMPETES Act? 

Answer. Continued support for NSF, NIST, and the Department of Energy’s Office 

of Science is critical to increase our Nation’s innovation and competitiveness. Putting NSF on a doubling path allows the Foundation to make healthy investments 

in both its core programs and in new areas of research, such as Cyber-Enabled Discovery and Innovation and Science and Engineering Beyond Moore’s Law. With additional funds, NSF has been able to invest in the Networking and Information 

Technology Research and Development program and certain aspects of the National 

63 

Nanotechnology Initiative, such as nanomanufacturing and nanoenvironmental 

health and safety, both Administration priorities. NSF’s Centers program has also 

grown over the past few years, from about $250 million annually to the current FY 

2011 Budget Request of $314 million. The America COMPETES Act helped the 

Foundation focus on the importance of transformational research and on awards 

that meet critical national science needs. 

In reauthorizing the National Science Foundation, flexibility is the key requirement. We need to pay careful attention to our STEM workforce programs. The Graduate Research Fellowship program is widely recognized as a unique fellowship grant 

program because it supports the broad array of science and engineering disciplines 

across all fields of science as well as international research activity. The President 

plans to triple the number of new fellows by FY 2013. Other programs, such as the 

Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship (IGERT) program, also 

have important roles to play in shaping the future STEM workforce. However, every 

STEM program needs to be considered based on its own merit. 

NSF’s planning is consistent with Administration and National Science Board 

guidance. In FY 2011 and beyond, NSF will invest in areas of national interest, such 

as climate and energy research, cyberinfrastructure, and Science and Engineering 

Beyond Moore’s Law. These investments, along with our strong core programs, will 

help the U.S. maintain global competitiveness. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON TO

DR. ARDEN BEMENT, JR. 

Question. Over the past 3 years, the America COMPETES Act has sought to increase funding at the NSF, NIST and the DOE Office of Science in order to increase 

our Nation’s innovation and competitiveness. In your opinion, what were some of 

the key areas that were positively affected by COMPETES and what areas need further work? Do you have any specific recommendations that you would like to see 

the Committee address during the reauthorizing of the COMPETES Act? 

Answer. Continued support for NSF, NIST, and the Department of Energy’s Office 

of Science is critical to increase our Nation’s innovation and competitiveness. Putting NSF on a doubling path allows the Foundation to make healthy investments 

in both its core programs and in new areas of research, such as Cyber-Enabled Discovery and Innovation and Science and Engineering Beyond Moore’s Law. With additional funds, NSF has been able to invest in the Networking and Information 

Technology Research and Development program and certain aspects of the National 

Nanotechnology initiative, such as nanomanufacturing and nanoenvironmental 

health and safety, both Administration priorities. NSF’s Centers program has also 

grown over the past few years, from about $250 million annually to the current FY 

2011 Budget Request of $314 million. The America COMPETES Act helped the 

Foundation focus on the importance of transformational research and on awards 

that meet critical national science needs. 

In reauthorizing the National Science Foundation, flexibility is the key requirement. We need to pay careful attention to our STEM workforce programs. The Graduate Research Fellowship program is widely recognized as a unique fellowship grant 

program because it supports the broad array of science and engineering disciplines 

across all fields of science as well as international research activity. The President 

plans to triple the number of new fellows by FY 2013. Other programs, such as the 

Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship (IGERT) program, also 

have important roles to play in shaping the future STEM workforce. However, every 

STEM program needs to be considered based on its own merit. 

NSF’s planning is consistent with Administration and National Science Board 

guidance. In FY 2011 and beyond, NSF will invest in areas of national interest, such 

as climate and energy research, cyberinfrastructure, and Science and Engineering 

Beyond Moore’s Law. These investments, along with our strong core programs, will 

help the U.S. maintain global competitiveness. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. BILL NELSON TO

PATRICK D. GALLAGHER, PH.D. 

Question 1. Please tell me more about the additional $10 million that NIST plans 

to invest in cybersecurity research. 

Answer. NIST will leverage its expertise and internationally recognized success 

in cybersecurity R&D and its decades-long working relationship with industry and 

its Federal agency partners to accelerate its focus on several critical research areas 

including advanced cryptographic techniques, identity management and authenticaVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:54 Feb 28, 2011 Jkt 064707 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\64707.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
64 

tion technologies, security automation technologies, as well as security requirements 

for new information technologies. 

Question 2. You know that this is a critically important issue for the entire nation. If you were given additional resources, what additional research can NIST conduct to improve cybersecurity? 

Answer. A $10 million increase as requested in the President’s Budget helps address the need to grow NIST’s cybersecurity efforts significantly while ensuring that 

the level of growth is manageable. In support of its cyber security mission to develop 

standards, guidelines and conformance testing, NIST will continue to develop research programs in security technologies such as security controls including protocols, vulnerability management, information infrastructure protections, biometrics, 

software assurance, security forensics, and security metrics and testing techniques. 

Question 3. Why does the EPSCoT program continue to go unfunded? 

Answer. We believe that NIST has a number of existing and pilot programs that 

have proven to be effective for spurring technological and economic development. 

Question 4. As policymakers look for innovative ways to spur job creation, isn’t 

it worth looking at EPSCoT as a potential model? 

Answer. We believe that NIST has a number of existing and pilot programs that 

have proven to be effective for spurring technological and economic development. 

The NIST Technology Innovation Program (TIP) has demonstrated the ability to 

leverage Federal investments in transformational technologies. TIP supports, promotes, and accelerates innovation in the United States through high-risk, high-reward research in areas of critical national need. TIP has the agility and flexibility 

to make targeted investments in transformational R&D that will ensure our Nation’s future through sustained technological leadership. 

The Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) has increased the program’s focus on the development of new profit opportunities for our Nation’s manufacturers. The Next Generation MEP strategy is focused on developing the tools and 

services to help strengthen American manufacturing by accelerating its ongoing 

transformation into a more efficient and powerful engine of innovation to drive economic growth and job creation. 

Finally, in 2007 NIST began its pilot implementation of its Partnerships for Regional Innovation (PRI) program. Working in the area of post-CMOS electronics, 

this program has shortened the timescale of innovation in this critical area, has 

highly leveraged a limited amount of Federal research dollars, and attracted commitments in excess of $200 million in state and private funds to support business 

development opportunities that result form the research performed in this program. 

Question 5. What role do you envision MEP playing in promoting advanced manufacturing? 

Answer. As outlined in the Next Generation Strategy, MEP is focused on developing the tools and services to help manufacturers recognize technology opportunities and solutions for the development of innovative products and process improvements. In addition, the MEP Advisory Board recently issued a white paper, ‘‘Innovation and Product Development in the 21st Century’’ (http://www.nist.gov/mep/ 

upload/MEPladvisorylreportl4l241.pdf) that outlines a set of recommendations focused on expanding current service offerings and developing new partnerships to help manufacturers adopt technological advances. 

Question 6. How is MEP helping small and medium manufactures compete in the 

growing global marketplace? 

Answer. MEP has a number of services and tools focused on helping manufacturers identify opportunities and expand into new markets. 

Specifically, NIST MEP, in partnership with other resources, is developing a process to help companies introduce new or improved product concepts and outline the 

market potential of those new ideas. 

Companies are also provided assistance and guidance to move into international 

markets through the ExporTech program. ExporTech is a collaborative effort between MEP, the U.S. Export Assistance Centers, District Export Councils, Small 

Business Development Centers, and state-based international trade programs. This 

program is a ‘‘how to’’ service to help companies expand into global markets by developing a proactive international growth plan customized for their business and 

moving the company into actual, profitable export sales. The program offers detailed 

guidance—all in one place—on the variety of elements critical to understand for executing an exporting program, from banking and financing to freight forwarding, licensing, and strategy. 

65 

Question 7. Access to capital is a major factor that limits the ability of small and 

medium manufacturers to grow. This is especially true in this tough economy. If 

MEP were given the authority to develop a loan program, how would it be used? 

Answer. To avoid creating a loan program that may be duplicative of existing Federal programs, a first step would be to inventory and assess the performance of existing loan programs and to determine the extent to which existing credit programs, 

such as DOE’s loan guarantees for innovative energy technologies and SBA’s 7(a) 

loan program, can be used to achieve the same policy goals. The Administration recognizes the difficulties that small manufacturers face. That is why the FY 2011 

Budget proposed to increase the maximum loan size in SBA’s 7(a) and 504 programs 

from $2 million to $5 million ($4 million to $5.5 million for 504 loans to manufacturers). The Administration has also supported a temporary increase through FY 2011 

to the maximum size of SBA express loans from $350,000 to $1 million. These loans 

have a quicker turnaround than other loans and are often made as revolving lines 

of credit to small businesses, including small manufacturers. Finally, the Administration has called for the extension of fee holidays and increased guarantee percentages, as provided in the Recovery Act, on eligible SBA-backed loans through the end 

of FY 2010. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. TOM UDALL TO

PATRICK D. GALLAGHER, PH.D. 

Question 1. I am very encouraged by the green manufacturing and construction 

initiative discussed in NIST’s FY 2011 budget request. Buildings consume 73 percent of electricity and 40 percent of overall energy. Yet many construction firms do 

not have the skills or expertise to take advantage of new technologies to improve 

the energy efficiency. NIST researchers at the Building and Fire Research Lab already help develop standards and technologies to improve buildings. Since manufacturing now plays an increasingly important role in the construction industry, I think 

there is an important opportunity for the Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program to promote green jobs and energy independence. Builders 

today already rely on manufactured components and sub-assemblies. Manufacturing 

will become even more important to construction as homes are increasingly ‘‘assembled’’ onsite from components made in a factory. MEP Centers have already helped 

thousands of small and medium-sized manufacturers across the country. Now that 

lean, high quality manufacturing is applicable to construction, it is not a stretch for 

MEP Centers to teach the same skills to the construction industry, where small 

firms are the norm. That is why I am working on legislation to fund MEP Center 

pilot projects for green jobs related to energy efficiency. This would build on provisions already authorized by America COMPETES legislation. Dr. Gallagher, I want 

to encourage NIST efforts to promote green manufacturing and construction. I hope 

that I can work with you and your staff to find ways that the MEP program can 

play a central role in these efforts. 

Will you consider ways that the Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership 

(MEP) program can assist in NIST’s efforts to promote green manufacturing and 

construction to promote job growth and energy independence? 

Answer. Yes. MEP, along with the Building and Fire Research Laboratory at 

NIST, are in preliminary discussions with DOE’s Building Technologies Program to 

identify potential collaborations focused on efforts to identify materials and equipment manufacturers that employ green and environmentally sustainable practices, 

to educate building and construction designers/contractors on how to use these 

green processes and products, and to develop best practices guidance to encourage 

the implementation of cost-effective technology solutions in new and existing buildings. 

Question 2. Dr. Gallagher, as you know, I am a supporter of the Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program. The New Mexico MEP Center has 

helped small manufacturers from across my home state. I know the Administration 

has said it wants to double the MEP program to $180 million by 2015. How do you 

see MEP program fitting into the Administration’s overall plan for an America 

COMPETES reauthorization? 

Answer. The Administration recognizes the role of the Manufacturing Extension 

Partnership in helping to improve the competitiveness of U.S. manufacturers, as 

noted in the December 2009 Framework for Revitalizing American Manufacturing 

and reflected in the President’s Budget, which proposes to increase funding for the 

MEP to $180 million in FY 2015. 

Question 3. Dr. Gallagher, in your written statement, you mention that NIST’s 

sustainability initiative includes work related to improving the cost and efficiency 

66 

of solar panels. As a native of New Mexico, you certainly know that the Land of 

Enchantment has no shortage of sunshine to help boost renewable energy production. This is one reason why I am interested in how solar and other renewable energy sources can reduce pollution and increase our energy independence. 

• When does NIST expect its work on photovoltaics to affect the market place? 

• What kind of efficiency improvements are we hoping for in next generation 

solar panels? 

• What cost improvements are possible? 

Answer. NIST is currently engaged in work that is affecting the solar marketplace. 

NIST research and testing protocols enable users to optimize current solar technologies to maximize their efficiencies through optimal placement. In addition, NIST 

provides accelerated testing capabilities that provide accurate data service life and 

changes to performance with aging. While these activities focus mainly on current 

solar technologies in the market place, NIST is also working to develop the measurement science and tools necessary to enable the development of advanced third 

generation photovoltaic (PV) technologies, which will likely impact the market in 

the next 10 years. 

Although first and second generation silicon-based PV devices will see gains as 

manufacturing processes improve, they are fundamentally limited in efficiency by 

the properties of silicon and in cost by the use of near-crystalline material. 

New third-generation PV technologies seek to dramatically improve the overall efficiency by exploiting new nanostructures and quantum devices. Despite the substantial investment in PV technology, commercialization of third-generation devices 

is limited by a lack of accurate and reproducible measurements of some key fundamental properties associated with this new technology. With the proposed increase 

in funding, NIST will address this issue by extending its current state of optical, 

electrical, chemical and physical measurement to deliver advanced measurement 

and modeling tools that will enable researchers to understand and optimize the intrinsic electronic and optoelectronic processes that govern the efficiencies of thirdgeneration PVs. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. MARK WARNER TO

PATRICK D. GALLAGHER, PH.D. 

Question 1. The United States is one of the few countries without a national competitiveness strategy. The UK, South Korea, the Netherlands, Ireland, and Denmark 

have all created their own strategies while the most recent comparable U.S. assessment was in 1978. 

• If Congress authorizes a new national competitiveness strategy, what are the 

top two or three issues you think we should include? Please be specific. 

• To what extent are you aware of competitiveness strategies in other countries? 

Do you think we could use other approaches as a starting point or should we 

be focusing on other issues? Which ones? 

• Which competitiveness strategies and which competitors should we be most influenced by as we develop our own strategy? How should the U.S. measure itself 

against these other strategies? 

Answer. There have been a number of bipartisan studies over the past several 

years providing consistent recommendations on steps that should be taken to 

strengthen America’s competitive posture, including the National Academies ‘‘Rising 

Above the Gathering Storm’’ report, which was often referenced during the development and consideration of the America COMPETES Act in 2007 (P.L. 110–69). 

COMPETES provided a very aggressive and strong starting point to address some 

of the issues raised in the report. 

Continued support for the programs identified in the COMPETES Act and the priorities outlined in the President’s Plan for Science and Innovation provide a strong 

strategic foundation for enhancing American competitiveness. 

Question 2. The America COMPETES act has been largely successful, but it seems 

to assume commercialization of new technology will just happen, assuming we do 

the right research and come up with good ideas. We need more than that for longterm success and innovation. 

• One possibility is to create a new Federal initiative, in partnership with universities, to create a system of university-based support for entrepreneurs and tech 

transfer. Rather than just funding programs like STTR, which provide funding 

67 

to specific companies, the Federal Government could fund incubation centers 

within the university communities. What do you think about this concept? 

Could this type of program help spur commercialization? 

• Are there other ideas that should be considered such as public-private partnerships or other concepts? If so, what should they look like? 

Answer. We must adapt our mechanisms and policies for investing in science and 

technology to meet the challenges of the 21st century in ways that maximize the 

return on our investments and increase our capacity and capability for innovation. 

There are a number of consensus building blocks that can be used to build novel 

Federal R&D programs and create new Federal R&D investment strategies. Chief 

among these is that R&D is the foundation for innovation. Finally, there is a consensus that Federal science and technology policy should aim to increase the efficiency of this discovery-invention-innovation process and promote competition within industry. 

Programs that combine and coordinate Federal R&D, research grants, grants to 

build cutting edge laboratories and research facilities, laboratories and the formation of novel public-private partnerships will directly address the challenges of innovation in the 21st century. 

Question 3. Should there be more focus on clean energy technology, as part of a 

COMPETES reauthorization? Do you have ideas in terms of other initiatives Congress could create or existing programs we could improve? 

Answer. The development of clean and sustainable sources of energy is a major 

challenge for the Nation. The Administration has placed a high priority on the development of new and cleaner sources of energy while reducing atmospheric emissions from energy production. Efforts in this area will benefit the environment and 

will help drive a revitalized manufacturing sector. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. OLYMPIA J. SNOWE TO

PATRICK D. GALLAGHER, PH.D. 

Question 1. The Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) is a tremendously 

successful program that assists small and medium-sized manufacturers with technical assistance projects, training, and long-term strategic support. And while I am 

certainly pleased that the MEP program is slated to receive $129.7 million for FY 

2011, I am concerned that centers across the country will find it difficult to draw 

down this funding because of a high cost-share requirement of two-thirds. That 

means that for every dollar a state MEP center receives, it must match that dollar 

with an additional two dollars. Indeed, of the 80 programs that the Department of 

Commerce funds, the MEP is the only program with a statutory cost-share requirement above 50 percent! 

While it has always been a difficult burden in the past for MEP centers to satisfy 

this high cost share requirement, it will be even more difficult now in this trying 

economy. State governments facing budget shortfalls are cutting back the amount 

they provide to these centers, and private entities are reducing their contributions 

as well. That is why I introduced legislation (S. 695) last year that would reduce 

that requirement to 50 percent, a much-needed step that will provide relief to these 

centers that have a significant role in aiding thousands of small and medium-sized 

manufacturers nationwide. 

My cost share legislation has been referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation. Can I enlist your support, as Director of NIST, 

for the change in cost share that would help inject parity in this critical manufacturing program, relative to other Commerce programs? 

Answer. The current cost share aspect of the MEP program encourages significant 

state and local buy-in and is a core component of the program’s success. I understand there are proposals, such as yours, proposing changes and flexibility to the 

cost share. I recognize the fiscal constraints many states are currently facing, and 

I am happy to work with you to explore ways to address situations in which states 

are in particularly dire circumstances. 

Question 2. On February 1, I joined with nearly 30 of my colleagues in writing 

to Commerce Secretary Gary Locke about our concerns that a portion of Fiscal Year 

2010 funding for the MEP program may not be used to help existing MEP centers. 

In that letter, we wrote, ‘‘We understand that the MEP program is contemplating 

diverting some of the funds from existing MEP Centers, and instead providing them 

to unproven alternatives. The best way to help manufacturers and create jobs is to 

utilize the existing, proven MEP network in all 50 states. It is clear that Congress 

intended this funding to go to existing MEP Centers, as has been the practice for 

68 

the entirety of this program’s history.’’ We are still awaiting a response. At the same 

time, I appreciate that your staff has had constructive conversations with mine on 

this issue. 

Director Gallagher, MEP centers nationwide are struggling. State governments 

facing shortfalls are cutting back the amount they provide to these centers, as are 

private entities. Every dollar that these centers receive allows them to focus on the 

urgent task of helping small and medium-sized manufacturers create jobs. 

Will you assure me that aside from administrative costs, any Federal funding appropriated by Congress for the MEP program will go either directly to existing MEP 

centers or to centers for their use in conjunction with partnering organizations and 

entities, and not directly to outside organizations or groups that are not working 

with existing centers? 

Answer. The Secretary of Commerce responded to your letter on March 1, 2010 

(attached). The letters states, ‘‘. . . the MEP program does not intend to divert 

funding from existing Centers.’’ 

MEP has competitively awarded funds for a number of years in order to ensure 

the best value for the American taxpayer. Centers have benefited from such competitions in the past. This year’s planned competition, consistent with previous competitions, will help to ensure that MEP’s customers, small and medium-sized manufacturers, such as those in Maine, will receive the most benefit: cutting-edge, forward-thinking services and programs to help manufacturers succeed and grow in 

this increasingly global economy. 

In FY 2010 MEP will make available $9.5M, an amount that is 7.6 percent of 

MEP’s total funding, for competitive grants. As we communicated to staff representing members of the Northeast-Midwest Senate Coalition, including your office, 

a priority will be on applicants partnering with an existing Center or Centers. 

The grant awards are to be used to accelerate and incentivize Centers and other 

nonprofits to create or strengthen partnerships to develop specific tools and services, 

including environmental best practices and emerging technologies. MEP is committed to leveraging its resources and its funds to deliver the highest quality tools 

and services to U.S. manufacturers to ensure their competitiveness. 

Question 3. In regard to the Technology Innovation Program (TIP), I am concerned that smaller states, such as my home state of Maine, are not receiving any 

funding under this initiative. When the program was known as the Advanced Technology Program, or ATP, in the 45 competitions throughout that program’s history— 

from 1990 to September 2007—Maine firms submitted 17 applications and received 

zero awards. Indeed, nine states received no funding under ATP—six of which have 

populations of less than one million people. All of those states except Alaska had 

more than one application for funding. Additionally, in TIP’s two-year history, 

Maine firms have continued to receive no funding. Thus far, companies in only 22 

states have received awards under TIP. 

While I appreciate the unique nature of TIP, I am concerned that large states like 

New York, California, and Massachusetts are receiving the vast majority of the 

funding while smaller states that still have much innovation to offer are left out 

of the process. What can you do at NIST to ensure that all states have a fair opportunity to compete for TIP funding? Furthermore, is there anything we in Congress 

can do, when reauthorizing the America COMPETES Act, to accomplish that goal? 

Answer. TIP awards cost-shared funding for high-risk, high-reward research in 

areas of critical national need. The program offers competitive funding opportunities 

that are publicly announced in the Federal Register, on the www.grants.gov website 

(Announcement of Federal Funding Opportunity), and on the TIP website at 

www.nist.gov/tip. Whenever TIP announces a funding opportunity, we hold public 

meetings to explain application procedures and funding criteria, and these meetings 

are broadly communicated through webcasts and related webinars. TIP selects proposals for funding based on a multi-disciplinary peer review process. 

TIP has held two competitions and announced 29 awards to lead organizations in 

16 states since the program’s inception in 2007. However, because many of the 

projects that TIP funds feature collaborations between multiple companies, universities or other organizations, these 29 awards have included 69 participants across 

22 states. One of those companies is Caron Engineering located in Wells, Maine. 

This company is a sub-recipient on a project funded as part of our 2009 manufacturing competition. This $3.17 million project ($1.564 million from TIP) will develop 

physics-based predictive modeling tools for developing machinable advanced alloys 

(see project description at http://tipex.nist.gov/tippb/prjbriefs/prjbrief.cfm?Project 

Number=090062). 

TIP has received 184 proposals from 44 states from its two competitions in civil 

infrastructure and manufacturing in 2008 and 2009. None were from Maine. HowVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:54 Feb 28, 2011 Jkt 064707 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\64707.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
69 

ever, TIP has received a ‘‘white paper’’ from Maine as part of the program’s on-going 

solicitation for input into potential topics for future funding. 

Similarly, Maine organizations were participants in two joint ventures that received financial support under ATP. Pepin Associates of Greenville, Maine, was a 

participant on a joint venture funded in 1995 to develop technologies for advanced 

composite electric vehicles (see http://jazz nist.gov/atpcf/prjbriefs/prjbrief.cfm? 

ProjectNumber=95–11–0036), and Brunswick Technologies of Brunswick Maine was 

on a 1994 joint venture engaged in research for high performance composites for 

large commercial structures (see http://jazz.nist.gov/atpcf/prjbriefs/prjbrief.cfm? 

ProjectNumber=94–02–0033). 

Question 4. In your testimony, you noted that NIST’s Fiscal Year 2011 budget request ‘‘. . . provides $124.8 million for the Construction of Research Facilities, including $66.1 million in funds targeting the renovation of NIST’s facilities in Gaithersburg and Boulder, and providing a sufficient amount of funds for on-going 

maintenance and repair of NIST’s infrastructure.’’ 

As Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I am always concerned that, when government agencies contract construction projects to private firms, they keep in mind the government-wide statutory 23- 

percent small business contracting goal. The Department of Commerce and NIST 

have a prime opportunity to utilize this funding to help small businesses gain access 

to the Federal contracting arena. 

Will you pledge that your agency will keep small businesses in mind when entering into contracts for construction of research facilities and renovation of NIST facilities, in furtherance of meeting the Department’s statutory contracting goals? 

Answer. Yes. NIST partnered with the Montgomery County Chamber of Commerce to sponsor an Industry Day to inform small businesses of Recovery Funded 

opportunities. The Industry Day was attended by over 500 small businesses from 

the local area. Additionally, the staff conducted a separate Industry Day for the Net 

Zero Energy Facility construction project to inform small businesses in the housing 

industry on the specifics of the requirement and encourage competition. The staff 

has awarded all but one of the construction design projects to small businesses. The 

actual construction requirements are all small business set-asides with the exception of the Building One Expansion in Boulder, Colorado. 

Question 5. I have heard concerns from several stakeholders about NIST’s implementation of the America COMPETES Act, specifically surrounding restrictions on 

matching costs for MEP centers. To clarify any issues surrounding matching costs, 

I, along with Senators Kohl, Reed and Collins, authored an amendment to the bill 

stating that, ‘‘All non-Federal costs, contributed by such entities [‘such as private 

industry, universities, and State governments’] and determined by a Center as programmatically reasonable and allocable under MEP program procedures are includable as a portion of the Center’s contribution.’’ To my understanding, however, 

present MEP regulations do not accurately reflect the intent of this provision. What, 

specifically, has your agency done thus far to fully implement this legislation with 

regard to Section 3003(a) of P.L. 110–86? 

Answer. As indicated in Secretary Locke’s recent letter to you and your colleagues 

(attached), NIST works to ensure that the partnerships established by the program’s 

centers further the mission of the program while meeting all applicable rules and 

regulations, consistent with Section 3003(a) of P.L. 110–69. 

As a component of the MEP program procedures for annual renewal of center cooperative agreements, the NIST MEP program and grant management personnel 

routinely review MEP center operating plans to ensure that the cost share proposed 

by centers is allowable, reasonable and allocable to the MEP program. MEP has updated the Hollings MEP General Terms and Conditions and Operating Plan Guideline to ensure center compliance with Statute and Legislative requirements and has 

conducted a series of system-wide webcasts and training sessions to ensure all Centers have access to the updated information. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. BILL NELSON TO

DR. ROBERT D. BRAUN

Question 1. What is your timeline for developing a research strategy that includes 

specific R&D priorities? 

Answer. The Office of the Chief Technologist (OCT) is developing an integrated 

and prioritized Agency technology R&D strategy and roadmap, that includes the 

technology programs within the Mission Directorates and the new Space Technology 

Program. 

70 

An integrated set of technology area roadmaps will be developed, setting and 

prioritizing technology ‘‘pathways’’ to meet NASA’s Strategic Mission and Goals in 

a technology-pull manner. Once established, this Agency-level technology roadmap 

will be visited each year to assess performance and make mid-course corrections. In 

addition, these roadmaps will be fully revised every 4 years (consistent with NASA 

Strategic Plan updates) through a formal peer review process. The Office of the 

Chief Technologist will use NASA’s Strategic Goals, Outcomes and Objectives to 

break down NASA’s R&D needs into a set of technology areas as a way of categorizing, tracking and measuring NASA’s technology investments. A team of technology experts comprised of both NASA and external representatives—from industry, academia, and other government organizations—will develop the respective 

roadmaps for each technology area. Delivery of the initial draft version of these 

roadmaps will occur by October 1, 2010. A formal release of the first complete (externally peer reviewed) version of this planning material will occur by October 1, 

2011. A detailed roadmap process timeline will be available in June 2010. 

Concurrently, the NASA Office of the Chief Technologist is moving forward with 

planning activities associated with the three main elements of the Space Technology 

Program: Early-Stage Innovation; Game-Changing Technology; and, Crosscutting 

Capability Demonstrations. At present, an Agency-wide team, including civil-servants from each NASA Center, is in place developing detailed plans for these three 

major program elements and an Agency partnership development and strategic integration function. By June 2010, the Office of the Chief Technologist will produce 

draft technology program/project plans, technology focus areas, and procurement 

strategies and schedules for this technology-push program. These efforts will be coordinated with the needs of other government agencies and the aerospace industry. 

NASA will keep the Congress informed of our progress. Pending Congressional approval, it is our goal to have all the necessary plans in place so that we will be 

poised to effectively manage and implement the Space Technology Program beginning on October 1, 2010. 

Question 2. How do you plan to coordinate NASA’s R&D efforts across the different mission directorates and NASA centers, especially aeronautics? 

Answer. NASA is in the process of establishing two key elements of our program 

governance model to manage and integrate our technology investments across Programs, Mission Directorates, and Centers. The Office of the Chief Technologist is 

charged with providing strategic coordination, integration and communication of the 

Agency’s technology investments. This responsibility requires knowledge of all Agency technology programs, as well as execution of a strategic planning process among 

these programs and their sponsoring organizations. The NASA Technology Executive Council (NTEC), organized and chaired by the NASA Office of the Chief Technologist is the key portfolio management and decision-making body through which 

these R&D efforts will be coordinated. NTEC membership will include the Mission 

Directorate Associate Administrators and the NASA Chief Engineer. Agency-level 

technology integration, coordination, strategic planning, and prioritization of both 

aeronautics and space efforts will be performed by the NTEC through regularly held 

assessment and decision meetings. 

Additionally, the Office of the Chief Technologist is forming a Center Technology 

Council (CTC), chaired by the NASA Office of the Chief Technologist with membership that includes the Center Chief Technologist (CCT) from each NASA Center and 

JPL. This Council will assess the Agency technology road-mapping and technology 

prioritization activities from a bottoms-up perspective, and provide these assessments to NTEC. 

Question 3. In your testimony, you state that an internal study team found that 

NASA needs to improve its coordination with industry, academia, and other government agencies. How do you plan to improve this cooperation? 

Answer. NASA will seek input from industry, academia, and other government 

agencies as we move forward with the Agency’s roadmapping activities as well as 

the program planning and development of the Space Technology Program. Subject 

matter experts from NASA, industry, academia and other government agencies will 

comprise the teams assigned to develop the cross-Agency technology area roadmaps. 

NASA will also vet the technology roadmaps with both internal and external review teams. NASA Office of the Chief Technologist personnel and the NASA Technology Executive Council will serve as the internal review team. The Office of the 

Chief Technologist will coordinate with external entities including the National 

Academies and other government agencies to form an external review team. NASA 

has a long history of working with the National Academies in various space science, 

Earth science, and aeronautics decadal surveys and reviews and greatly values the 

Academies input. 

71 

1See An Assessment of the SBIR Program at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2009, p. 7. 

Additionally, a key element of the Office of the Chief Technologist organization 

is Partnerships, Innovation and Commercialization. This functional element has the 

specific responsibility of increasing NASA collaboration with industry, academia, 

and other government agencies. NASA is re-establishing a program akin to the 

NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts to engage innovators within and external to 

the Agency in accordance with the recommendations of the NRC’s Fostering Visions 

of the Future report. Unlike previous NASA Technology Programs, the three elements under the OCT Space Technology Program will issue open calls for technology 

development and demonstration activities that encourage partnerships between industry, academia and other government agencies. These open calls represent a significant fraction (greater than 70 percent) of the Space Technology Program funding. 

Collaboration is also a matter of organizational culture. Based on input received 

from the newly formed NASA Advisory Council Committee on Technology and Innovation, the NASA Office of the Chief Technologist is planning a wide range of activities to improve the collaboration culture of the NASA Centers. This includes increasing our on-going external outreach activities including workshops, conferences, 

forums, advisory committee meetings, and symposia as key methods of coordinating 

and communicating with our external key technology customers and stakeholders as 

well as making use of Intergovernmental Personnel Agreements and other mechanisms for short-term personnel developmental assignments with other government 

agencies, academia, and industry. 

Question 4. As NASA increases its reliance on the private sector for R&D, how 

will you guarantee that this money is being spent wisely? 

Answer. NASA intends to ensure wise use of Space Technology R&D funds 

through the utilization of far-reaching technology goals, milestones, and the use of 

open competition. The three elements under the OCT Space Technology program 

will issue open calls for technology development and demonstration activities that 

encourage partnerships between industry, academia and other government agencies. 

These open calls represent a significant fraction greater than 70 percent) of the 

Space Technology program funding. 

The new Space Technology program will incorporate many of the positive tenants 

of an ARPA/DARPA type organization in its planning, procurement and program 

execution strategies. The Space Technology program will increase its support for research in advanced space systems concepts and game-changing technologies, enabling new approaches to our current mission set and allowing the pursuit of entirely 

new missions. Using an array of management, funding, and partnership mechanisms—some similar to those utilized by DARPA—this program will engage the 

brightest minds in private industry, across the NASA Centers, and throughout academia. 

Specifically, the Space Technology program’s Game Changing Development element will use an ARPA/DARPA-like ‘‘end-game’’ approach. Research teams will be 

provided a list of challenge goals with top-level requirements for the desired capability. Under the direction of a Project Manger (PM) who is a technical expert in 

the subject area, multiple teams (performers) will compete to define solution approaches using advance technology to enable new capabilities that reduce cost and 

improve performance of space systems. Multiple solution approaches foster innovative, high payoff, high impact advances. The PM will be held accountable for ensuring that discoveries will move rapidly from laboratory to application. However, if 

certain research areas do not produce desired results or meet planned milestones; 

the Project Manager will have the authority to terminate the research effort. 

Question 5. Since SBIR will now be under your programmatic responsibility, what 

specific changes will you implement to make sure that we can minimize fraud? 

Answer. NASA SBIR is well integrated with the NASA Mission Directorates Strategic Goals, Outcomes and Objectives. The NASA SBIR Program develops its targeted topics and subtopics based on Mission Directorate objectives, under their oversight, and in collaboration with Mission Directorate personnel. NASA ensures quality and investment value through careful evaluation of all responsive proposals to 

SBIR/STTR Phase I and Phase II solicitations for technical and commercial merit, 

feasibility, and relevance to NASA research. 

The NASA SBIR program also seeks to promote technologies that allow small 

businesses to contribute to the commercial aerospace market place. In a recent assessment conducted by the National Research Council (NRC),1 the NASA SBIR program was found to provide substantial, frequently decisive, support for small businesses. Sixty-eight percent of NASA SBIR Phase II award recipients stated that 

72 

they definitely or probably would not have undertaken the funded research project 

without SBIR funding. The NRC study also showed that the SBIR program measurably stimulates collaboration, technological innovation and generates new knowledge. Approximately one quarter of NASA SBIR projects responding to their data 

collection survey reported filing at least one patent. NASA believes that SBIR provides a significant contribution through the private sector, supporting the kinds of 

knowledge and intellectual property necessary to generate innovation and economic 

growth. 

Integration of the SBIR/STTR program within NASA’s Office of the Chief Technologist brings this program within the central organization responsible for technology development in the Agency. This integration will increase opportunities for 

coordination and collaboration of SBIR/STTR awards with NASA’s other R&D program investments and provide a central entry point for external innovators seeking 

opportunities for technology infusion in NASA’s future missions. 

NASA shares the Committees concern in ensuring that all of its programs, including the SBIR program, are free from waste, fraud, and abuse. We are committed 

to taking all necessary steps to improve the SBIR program in this regard. In December 2009, the NASA HQ Senior Assessment Team and its Internal Controls Office 

completed an internal assessment of the NASA SBIR program and a review of the 

programs internal controls, with a focus on waste, fraud and abuse. Since this assessment and review, the SBIR program and other offices having responsibility for 

program administration have implemented a number of supporting corrective actions. Some of these specific changes have already been implementation and others 

are in process. 

Specific implemented changes are as follows: 

• Augmentation of Procurement Office and Contracting Officers Technical Representative (COTR) training to include specific SBIR waste, fraud and abuse 

modules covering proposal evaluation and review responsibilities through contract surveillance. 

• Additional Agency specific training requirements under the NASA 

AcquisitionIntegrity Program Office focused on waste, fraud and abuse detection 

and prevention. 

• Increase waste, fraud and abuse general awareness across the SBIR/STTR programs. 

• Bottoms-up review of annual SBIR solicitation instructions to ensure clarity in 

both technical and costing data requirements for proposal submittals. 

• Greater past performance validation and checks, including: 

» Utilization of additional reference and bank checks. 

» Implementation of improved technical evaluation forms and checklists to facilitate source selection and cost/price analysis. 

• Increase annual firm re-certification to quarterly submittals. 

• Increased use of contract audit support such as DCAA/DCMA rate analysis capabilities. 

Specific planned changes are as follows: 

• Increased workforce resources to provide better coordination and oversight at 

NASA Centers, with the addition of program administrative capability at every 

Center. 

» Increase oversight of COTR roles and activities at each Center. 

» Ensure compliance of SBIR/STTR COTR certification requirements. 

» Management of implementing center ‘‘Virtual Site’’ visits. 

» Guidance on Surveillance Plans and understanding of monitoring roles over 

contractor performance. 

• Clear communication of the importance of the SBIR/STTR program to the Agency’s R&D efforts by the NASA Office of the Chief Technologist. 

• Personnel and organizational changes as part of the transition of the SBIR/ 

STTR program to the Office of Chief Technologist to provide better oversight 

and senior management of this key Agency program. 

• Enhance SBIR/STTR Electronic Tool Enhancements to help identify similar proposal submissions. 

» Use software, which can electronically compare key words and correlate 

phrases between technical proposals. 

73 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. TOM UDALL TO

DR. ROBERT D. BRAUN

Question. Dr. Braun, you mention the success of NASA’s Experimental Program 

to Stimulate Research (EPSCOR) program. EPSCOR has been critical to academic 

research and development at New Mexico State University. This is an important initiative for states with modest research infrastructure, and I believe NMSU has 

made the most of its EPSCOR funding. However, it now seems that NMSU is a victim of its own success. After successfully competing for EPSCOR funding in previous 

years, NMSU is no longer eligible to apply for another year. Should EPSCOR eligibility rules be changed to allow successful universities to continue to compete for 

NASA research funding? 

Answer. Through EPSCoR, NASA strives to develop academic research enterprises that are long-term, self-sustaining, and nationally competitive. By supporting 

states with modest research infrastructure, these EPSCoR-designated states are 

able to become more competitive in attracting research funding. Funding is awarded 

to lead academic institutions in 28 eligible states (designated by the National 

Science Foundation each year) to advance scientific and engineering research capabilities in areas of strategic importance to the NASA mission. 

New Mexico is an EPSCoR-eligible state and currently has four active NASA 

EPSCoR Research Awards and one EPSCoR Research Infrastructure Development 

(RID) award. As in previous NASA EPSCoR Research competitions, the number of 

active awards within an individual state was a key consideration in the determination of states permitted to propose to the cooperative agreement notice for FY 2010 

Research Awards. The current policy regarding award eligibility is designed to afford each EPSCoR jurisdiction a fair opportunity to compete for awards, consistent 

with the EPSCoR goal of supporting states with the greatest science, technology, engineering and math research infrastructure needs. 

In recent years, New Mexico has been among a select few EPSCoR states that 

have been highly successful in competing for NASA EPSCoR Research Awards. As 

New Mexico has won a total of three Research Awards in the last two competitions 

(one in 2008 and two in 2009), the state was not permitted to propose to the FY 

2010 Research Award solicitation. In addition to New Mexico, four other states have 

won at least three Research Awards in the last two competitions and were not permitted to propose to the FY 2010 solicitation. Although not permitted to propose to 

the Research Award solicitation, New Mexico has been invited to submit a proposal 

for a two-year continuation of their RID award in FY 2010. 

The geographic distribution of EPSCoR awards has always been an important aspect of the program. The success of New Mexico in the NASA EPSCoR Research 

Program is an indicator of the growing capabilities of the New Mexico institutions 

and their potential ability to successfully compete for awards outside the NASA 

EPSCoR Program. In upcoming research opportunities, we expect to continue to receive high-quality research proposals from New Mexico. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. MARK WARNER TO

DR. ROBERT D. BRAUN

Question 1. The United States is one of the few countries without a national competitiveness strategy. The UK, South Korea, the Netherlands, Ireland, and Denmark 

have all created their own strategies while the most recent comparable U.S. assessment was in 1978. If Congress authorizes a new national competitiveness strategy, 

what are the top two or three issues you think we should include? Please be specific. 

To what extent are you aware of competitiveness strategies in other countries? Do 

you think we could use other approaches as a starting point or should we be focusing on other issues? Which ones? Which competitiveness strategies and which competitors should we be most influenced by as we develop our own strategy? How 

should the U.S. measure itself against these other strategies? 

Answer. Our Nation’s economic competitiveness and high standard of living are 

based on decades of investment in innovation. A focus on innovation and technology 

is required both to enable new approaches to NASA’s current missions and allow 

the Agency to pursue entirely new missions. This investment also will allow NASA 

to participate in the development of technological solutions addressing broader national needs in energy, weather and climate, Earth science, health and wellness, 

and national security. The President’s FY 2011 budget request for NASA is well 

aligned with America COMPETES Act (P.L. 110–69)—innovative, high-risk, high-return research to improve America’s economic competitiveness. NASA’s FY 11 budget 

request provides a renewed emphasis on research and development, clearly recognizing the importance of R&D as a longstanding and important catalyst for innovaVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:54 Feb 28, 2011 Jkt 064707 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\64707.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
74 

tion and economic expansion in our Nation. Innovative research and technology, tied 

to exciting missions with national importance, is also a strong motivator for students to pursue Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) disciplines, and a strong attraction for new hires. 

Clearly, an economic competitiveness strategy is important for maintaining our 

standard of living and our economic prosperity. In my view, the three most important elements of a comprehensive strategy are: (1) a highly educated citizenry, especially in the area of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM); (2) 

a sustained national commitment to innovation, research and technology; and, (3) 

a government which fosters and stimulates innovation in the commercial market 

place, and collaborates closely with industry and academia. In September 2009, the 

Obama Administration released A Strategy for American Innovation: Driving Toward Sustainable Growth and Quality Jobs. It serves as a competitiveness strategy 

for the Administration. NASA is part of this strategy’s larger national research and 

development effort in science, technology, and innovation that will lead to new products and services, new business and industries, and high-quality, sustainable jobs. 

These research and technology investments by both the public and private sector 

will reap significant future benefits—whether it is in the areas of information systems, biomedical, nanotechnology, space, energy or the environment. Our Nation 

has made great progress throughout its history by innovating solutions to the enormously difficult challenges it has encountered. The grand challenges of building an 

intercontinental railway, and landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely 

to the Earth, not only motivated a technological workforce, but also created new 

technologies and innovations along the way. These achievements inspired generations to pursue challenging goals, created new industries, and ultimately improved 

our country and the world. 

Numerous studies over the past twenty years, including the President’s Strategy 

for American Innovation, have highlighted the difficult challenges and issues facing 

our educational system. The educational achievement of America’s next generation 

is an issue that reaches our Nation at all levels. An educated, highly skilled workforce in the area of STEM is critical to our future economic competitiveness. While 

NASA investments alone will not solve our Nation’s major educational challenges, 

the Agency has proven to have a unique ability to attract and motivate many of the 

country’s best young minds into educational programs and careers in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. NASA will continue to partner with Federal, 

industry, state and local organizations and invest our resources toward a shared vision to secure those jobs critical to the 21st century workforce. This means not only 

inspiring the next generation and improving scientific literacy, but also providing 

educators with unique resources to aid in achieving national educational excellence 

in STEM. 

Since comparisons of national economic competitiveness strategies are not within 

our areas of expertise, NASA defers to a more appropriate organization such as the 

Department of Commerce or the Office of Science and Technology Policy to answer 

the final two parts of Senator Warner’s question. 

Question 2. The America COMPETES act has been largely successful, but it seems 

to assume commercialization of new technology will just happen, assuming we do 

the right research and come up with good ideas. We need more than that for longterm success and innovation. 

One possibility is to create a new Federal initiative, in partnership with universities, to create a system of university-based support for entrepreneurs and tech 

transfer. Rather than just funding programs like STTR, which provide funding to 

specific companies, the Federal Government could fund incubation centers within 

the university communities. What do you think about this concept? Could this type 

of program help spur commercialization? Are there other ideas that should be considered such as public-private partnerships or other concepts? If so, what should 

they look like? 

Answer. There is considerable evidence that the Nation’s major research universities are not only hubs of innovation, but also focal points for commercialization. 

As such, it is my opinion that the concept of incubation centers within university 

communities is an excellent idea, provided that the universities have strong research programs in science and engineering. In addition to providing basic necessities such as office space and office equipment and legal counsel at low cost, incubation centers provide valuable services such as linkages to potential sources of capital 

business development counsel. Incubation centers would encourage and help enable 

entrepreneurial-minded research faculty, as well as expand the training ground and 

research opportunities for graduate students, all of which should serve to spur commercial application of technology. 

75 

Regarding public-private partnerships, NASA’s Innovative Partnerships Program 

encourages and facilitates partnerships between NASA and the U.S. private sector 

and other external entities for technology development and maturation of technology 

of both NASA mission relevance and commercial interest. The program has produced several technologies that have been infused into NASA’s missions or been 

commercially applied. As a result of this experience, NASA is a believer in the concept of public-private partnerships to produce technologies for application in both 

the public and private sectors. In this proven model, both sides contribute significant resources to the collaboration. Technologies produced under such partnerships, 

as well as those created and licensed by NASA, are already mitigating global problems confronting mankind such as providing assistance in developing countries, environmental cleanup, disaster warning and relief, threat detection, and other applications contributing to public safety. NASA is interested in furthering these successful programs through additional collaborations and the addition of other approaches 

including partnerships with not-for-profit venture capital organizations. 

Question 3. Should there be more focus on clean energy technology, as part of a 

COMPETES reauthorization? Do you have ideas in terms of other initiatives Congress could create or existing programs we could improve? 

Answer. NASA technology investments are of benefit to more than the Agency’s 

missions and the aerospace industry. The Space Technology Program fosters innovative solutions to improve America’s ability to conduct space science and exploration. 

NASA technology investments in electric energy, used to power spacecraft systems 

and to propel vehicles through space can also spur advances in power generation, 

storage, and management. NASA will sponsor innovative new technologies and fundamental physics and materials developments to improve electric power generation 

and storage for application to future space missions. Solar and thermal processes 

used to create energy for NASA spacecraft and novel energetic materials may also 

be used for energy storage and transmission on the Earth. In addition, NASA’s 

space technology investments include wireless beaming of electrical energy using 

electromagnetic waves or lasers over long distances. 

As an example, in 2000, NASA and the University of Arizona developed the Mars 

Oxygen Generator, a two-pound experiment designed to generate oxygen for life support and fuel production on Mars. The device used solid oxide electrolysis cells to 

convert carbon dioxide and water into oxygen and fuel. When operated in reverse 

as a fuel cell, this device has been shown to produce clean, reliable electricity here 

on Earth. Development and commercialization of this technology as a NASA spinoff by Bloom Energy, which is now largely supported by the private sector, is moving beyond the early demonstration phase, with the goal of generating electricity at 

prices lower than traditional methods while producing half the amount of greenhouse gases. These clean energy systems will advance the Nation’s ability to meet 

future power demand. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON TO

DR. ROBERT D. BRAUN

Question. The FY 2011 Budget Request includes a 14 percent increase over the 

FY 2010 request for education. It appears, based on the proposed program allocations for those funds as described in your prepared statement, that NASA is beginning to step up to the plate more fully as a participant in the STEM education activities and in competitiveness and innovation enhancement activities, as directed 

in the America COMPETES Act. However, the entire education budget could be a 

rounding error when compared to the much larger research and development activities proposed in the FY 2011 Budget Request. What steps will you take to ensure 

that there is a tie-in to the broader research and technology development activities 

you expect to undertake and the STEM education initiatives that NASA has such 

great potential to provide value to? 

Answer. NASA’s new direction is well aligned with America COMPETES—innovative, high-risk, high-return research to improve America’s economic competitiveness. 

As a research and development (R&D) agency, NASA plays a vital role in America’s 

innovation engine and, as such, its future economic prosperity and security. The 

President’s FY 2011 budget request for NASA provides a renewed emphasis on research and development, which clearly recognizes the Agency as a longstanding and 

important catalyst for innovation and economic expansion in our Nation. Innovative 

research and technology, tied to exciting missions of national importance, is a strong 

motivator for students to pursue Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics 

(STEM) disciplines, and a strong attraction for new hires. 

76 

NASA recognizes the important role that STEM education plays in developing the 

diverse scientific and technological workforce required to advance this Nation’s economic leadership. The NASA Office of Education administers nationwide education 

efforts that draw on content from across the Agency in pursuit of its three primary 

education goals: (1) Strengthen NASA’s and the Nation’s future workforce; (2) Attract and retain students in STEM disciplines; and (3) Engage Americans in NASA’s 

mission. NASA leverages its unique program content, people, and facilities to spark 

interest, capture imaginations, and guide students toward careers in STEM fields 

while increasing their scientific and technological literacy to the benefit of the Nation. While NASA investments alone will not solve these major challenges, the 

Agency has proven to have a unique ability to attract and motivate many of the 

country’s best young minds to pursue educational programs and careers in science, 

technology, engineering and mathematics. 

Office of Education (OE) programs like the Experimental Program to Simulate 

Competitive Research (EPSCoR) and University Research Centers (URC) exist to 

build university R&D infrastructure and competitiveness at universities in states 

and regions that are underrepresented in Federal R&D competition. The OE works 

collaboratively with the R&D organizations in NASA to plan and execute these programs. When offering a competitive Announcement of Opportunity (AO), Cooperative Agreement Notice (CAN), or other solicitation, the OE works with the Mission 

Directorates to identify R&D priorities. It is toward these priorities and anticipated 

outcomes that the Mission Directorates and OE work cooperatively to select award 

recipients. In the course of performing these multi-year awards, university-based 

R&D professionals actively engage with scientists and engineers from NASA and industry so that both the individual and the institution develop capability and proficiency in advanced technology development and competitive opportunities. URC institutions benefit from the guidance of a Technical Review Committee (composed of 

NASA scientists/engineers) that meets regularly to discuss the progress of the work, 

provide problem-solving guidance, and identify possible growth opportunities. Each 

URC also has an Advisory Committee whose membership includes industry and collaborating university representatives. NASA Technical Monitors (TM) review the 

progress and outcomes of OE-funded R&D work and provide results and findings 

to the appropriate organizations within NASA’s programs. 

Both the URC and the NASA Science and Technology Institute for Minority Institutions (NSTI–MI) projects require the faculty involved in the institutional research 

to work with NASA scientists and engineers. For example, the Research Clusters 

under the NSTI–MI project collaborate directly with NASA scientists and engineers 

on current NASA projects. NSTI’s Information and Emerging Technologies Cluster 

(composed of five minority institutions) worked with the engineers at the Ames Research Center to develop a new method of monitoring live streaming traffic instead 

of storing the incoming data in the memory before processing. 

Within the Office of the Chief Technologist, an important aspect of the Space 

Technology Research Grants program is a new graduate fellowship program. This 

program focuses on competitive selection of U.S. citizen graduate student research 

that shows significant promise for future application to NASA missions. This effort 

will train the next generation of aerospace engineers and scientists by funding 

NASA-related graduate student research performed on campus during the academic 

year, as well as research performed at NASA Centers during the summer months. 

Each student in this project will be matched to a NASA researcher who will serve 

as the student’s NASA advisor. Through this experience, students will advance their 

STEM education, gain NASA experience, and learn the research and development 

process. NASA plans to highlight this student research through a number of 

symposia, conferences, and mission-related events over the course of the student’s 

academic career. In addition, by bringing students to the NASA Centers for considerable periods of time and matching the their research interests with those of a 

NASA advisor, the Agency intends to rebuild the pipeline of new STEM talent needed for NASA’s future missions. In FY11, $30M within the Space Technology Program is planned for this new program. 

NASA is committed to integrating and expanding STEM activities in the Agency’s 

research and technology efforts. Working in collaboration with the NASA Office of 

Education, NASA’s Office of the Chief Technologist will serve as a central tie-in between NASA’s broader research and technology development activities and our 

STEM education initiatives. 

Æ